Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Committee on the British Waterways Bill [Lords] have leave, for the purpose of its consideration of the powers sought by the British Waterways Board in the Bill, to visit and inspect sites on the Grand Union Canal, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or representative.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (to be presented under section 8 of the Act): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 16 March and to be printed [Bill 64].

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Object.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the presentation of the Provisional Order Bill. I am sorry, but I cannot take an objection in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Iraq

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the objectives of the British military contribution to the United Nations force covering Iraq.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The objective of British military involvement in Iraq is to secure the Iraqi Government's compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given the Department notice? From the pictures that have been taken by the RAF, is there any hard evidence of wanton destruction in the heart of the marshes in the area around Querna, where the Tigris meets the Euphrates?

Mr. Hanley: The answer is yes. We are constantly gathering information on the southern marshes. Where it is suitable for public release, we shall consider doing so from time to time to raise the level of public awareness and to inform debate in the House. We have already released a video film showing villages destroyed by the Iraqi military. Since then, there has been growing evidence of drying out and flooding in the area. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the notice that he gave; if he would like to see the video film I can arrange for that.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the RAF Harrier force is doing a first-class job from Turkey over northern Iraq, that last year about one third of Harrier crews were deployed overseas and that about half its crews are likely to be deployed overseas this year? Are not Her Majesty's forces being asked to do more with fewer resources? When will that process stop?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject of the RAF Harriers based at Incirlick. There are eight GR7 Harriers based there on Op Warden and they fly an average of four reconnaissance sorties each days in support of the northern no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel. We should also pay tribute to the six Tornado GR1s which also fly on average four sorties in support of the southern no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel. My hon. Friend will be aware that the RAF takes on those tasks willingly.

Military Operations

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of existing arrangements for the chartering of merchant tonnage in support of military operations; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department's arrangements for chartering merchant vessels are kept under constant review. Last August, we placed a one-year ship broking


services contract with the Baltic Exchange to cover most of our requirements. We shall revisit this contract in the coming months.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend think that there are any lessons to be drawn from the fact that during the Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations, only five out of 110 vessels utilised by British forces were British flagged, whereas 96 per cent. of those used in equivalent operations by the French forces were French flagged?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he should be aware that the charter contracts were offered on the open market and it was quite possible for British shipping companies to take them up. As they made clear to us, they did not do so largely because they had contractual obligations, which they were honouring at that time. There is no great significance in the percentage figures to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister will be aware of the heroic role that the merchant seamen played in the Normandy landings. Will he give the House an assurance that that contribution will be properly recognised in the D-day celebrations?

Mr. Aitken: Yes. I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The role of our merchant seamen was heroic in that conflict and it will be suitably recognised in the D-day celebrations.

Mr. Shersby: Does my hon. Friend recall the importance of Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands conflict and the serious consequences that flowed from the loss of that vessel? Will he assure the House that, in the event of any similar conflict in other parts of world, the Department will have access to suitable merchant vessels capable of carrying helicopters and other similar equipment?

Mr. Aitken: We certainly have taken careful heed of the lessons of the Falklands war, including the sad destruction of Atlantic Conveyor. Some 52 British ships were either requisitioned or chartered during the Falklands war. As I told the House in a debate on 9 July, despite a diminution of the number of British-flagged ships, we still believe that there are sufficient ships on the UK and dependent territories register for our defence needs.

Bosnia

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current British deployment in Bosnia.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The current Army battalion group—1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards and its support units—will be relieved in April and May by the 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment. At the request of the United Nations, we have also deployed a Cymbeline mortar-locating troop and a number of additional observers and monitors.

Mr. Macdonald: Is not it clear that General Rose has transformed the situation in Bosnia in the past month, building up for the first time a genuine momentum for a just peace in that country? Therefore, is not it shameful that the Government are still refusing, according to the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, to respond to

General Rose's request for extra forces of a high calibre and instead have been handing out redundancy notices to troops already there? Should not the message from the Government to General Rose be, "You are doing a magnificent job. Keep it up. Regardless of what other countries do, we will not let you down"?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should at least do the House the courtesy of checking his facts before he makes rather foolish and ill-informed accusations. An elementary perusal of this morning's newspapers would have informed him that, yesterday, a meeting was convened at the United Nations—it was a British initiative—to discuss additional troops being sent to Bosnia. The United Kingdom has already made it clear that it believes that there is such a case for sending additional troops and that we look to other countries to join us in carrying out that initiative.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for what he has just said and, indeed, for anything that can be done to assist a brilliant British general in charge of United Nations forces?

Mr. Rifkind: I happily pay tribute to the remarkable work that General Sir Michael Rose is doing in Bosnia. A number of important initiatives have been making healthy progress in the past few weeks, including the success of the operation involving the removal of heavy artillery from Sarajevo and the Croat-Muslim ceasefire. I understand today that there may be substantial progress with regard to the handing over of Tuzla airport to the United Nations. Against that background, we are all anxious to do what we can to build on that important window of opportunity because, clearly, a gradual implementation of a ceasefire throughout Bosnia will not only be of enormous relief to the people of Bosnia but will provide the best opportunity of bringing back United Nations troops to their own countries at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Hardy: Earlier this afternoon, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces informed the House of the contribution made by the Royal Air Force in restraining Iraq. In addition to telling the House of the military contribution in Bosnia, will the Secretary of State tell us what contribution is currently made, or has recently been made, by the RAF and by naval aircraft?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to remind us that the contribution in the Adriatic is being provided by all three services. The RAF has Tornado and Jaguar aircraft while the Royal Navy has not only ships in the Adriatic but Sea Harriers based on the carrier. That is a formidable tri-service operation, which illustrates that, even for a United Nations operation, sophisticated modern equipment is needed to ensure that the United Nations tasks can be fully carried out with the high degree of professionalism that we rightly expect.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the wisdom of the ages—that it is all too easy to commit troops to battle and all too hard to get them out again afterwards? Some of us remember that when British troops were first deployed in Northern Ireland, it was not expected that they would have to stay for more than a few years. Now we have over 17,000 there.


Does not he feel that extra commitments bring into question the whole Government policy of cutting back on our armed forces?

Mr. Rifkind: I am very conscious of the points that my hon. Friend made in the earlier part of his question. Of course we are all anxious to ensure that the strategy pursued is that which has the best prospect not only of bringing peace to Bosnia but of allowing the early return home of British and other United Nations forces.
As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he should remember that although we have 2,500 troops in Bosnia, we are also in the process of reducing our presence in Germany by some 40,000 compared with what was required during the cold war. The comparison illustrates why it is reasonable to plan for a smaller Army than was necessary during that period.

Dr. David Clark: A battalion of the Duke of Wellington regiment, with its Saxon armed cars already painted white, has been on standby for nearly three weeks. Why have we had to wait to be able to respond to General Rose's request for an attempt to keep the peace? When will the Government stop vacillating, and when will we dispatch those extra troops?

Mr. Rifkind: I know that the hon. Gentleman is motivated more by a daily search for sound bites than by the need to develop a sound and coherent policy. I must remind him, however, that the operation in Bosnia is not a purely British operation; it is a United Nations operation. As the hon. Gentleman likes to pride himself on being a great admirer of the UN, he should welcome the lead that the United Kingdom is giving to try to ensure a co-ordinated and united UN resolve and response to the request for additional forces.

Trident

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme.

Mr. Aitken: The Trident programme continues to make good progress, with HMS Vanguard due to enter service on time around the turn of the year.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be welcomed by all who are anxious for the freedom of this country and the defence of freedom worldwide. Does he agree that that progress would not have been made if we had listened to the Labour party in 1987, and would not be made if we were to listen to the unofficial leader of the Opposition today?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the important role that the Trident force will play in safeguarding our freedoms. He is also right—although not quite up to date—in his criticisms of the Labour party. He may be unaware that at its last conference Labour passed, by an overwhelming majority, composite motion No. 48, which demanded the immediate scrapping of the Trident programme—a policy which would leave British workers unemployed and Britain undefended.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister try to explain how a system that has been developed to produce massive and unthinkable damage—especially in the Soviet Union, to

prevent it from making a first strike—will deter any small state from developing its own nuclear weapons or threatening to use those weapons?

Mr. Aitken: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman begins to understand the whole principle of deterrence. In regard to Russia, he may not have noted the important announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin that no countries would target their missiles on each other any longer; his references to Russia are out of date. As for any conceivable involvement of a bandit state or an evil dictator, I think that both would probably be deterred by the threat of Trident missiles, which are likely to be sub-strategic as well as strategic.

Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people in the west country will be employed in the early years of the 21st century in maintaining the Trident submarine? Can he confirm that the Government remain committed to the fourth submarine, unlike the Labour party?

Mr. Aitken: Yes, I can indeed confirm that we remain committed to a fourth Trident submarine, for a very good reason: experience has shown us that the only way in which to be absolutely certain that we can maintain continuous patrolling of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent in our submarines is by having four boats available.

Mr. Donald Anderson: When will the Government take the danger of nuclear proliferation seriously? Last November, when the Government had a chance to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, they failed to do so; they reduced only the firepower on our nuclear submarines. Did not that send a negative signal to the countries in unstable parts of the world that have started, or are tempted to start, along the road to a nuclear capacity?

Mr. Aitken: The Government are firmly committed to non-proliferation and to encouraging that in all possible ways. As for signals, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that no Trident submarine will deploy with more than a maximum of 96 warheads and that, if our present plans continue, the total explosive firepower on a Trident submarine will be much the same as that deployed on Polaris submarines. Moreover, by the time that Trident is fully deployed, we expect that our whole operational nuclear arsenal will be some 25 per cent. less than our entire operational nuclear arsenal in 1990, so there is a reduction.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us are deeply concerned that we might be confined to a sea-launched nuclear capability because nuclear proliferation means that in the long run we may face nuclear enemies in the third world for which we shall need an air-launched capability to provide effective deterrence?

Mr. Aitken: It is important to recognise that the announcement that we have made about the sub-strategic role of Trident means that our nuclear strike capability could reach almost anywhere from a Trident submarine with a targeted sub-strategic missile. We shall have the capability, although it is not an air-launched capability. We shall of course retain an air-launched capability until approximately 2007 as a result of retaining the WE177 bomb.

Training

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries for which his Department provides or has provided training in this country or elsewhere in defence-related matters in the last 10 years.

Mr. Rifkind: Since 1984, students from some 116 countries have attend training courses in British military establishments. Also, I am pleased to announce to the House that today I have formally agreed that the United Kingdom will contribute to the training of a Baltic joint peacekeeping battalion composed of contingents from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as part of a phased multinational programme of assistance. The United Kingdom's contribution will be led by the Royal Marines who will provide individual and company-level training.

Mr. Ainger: May I assure the House that that was not a planted question? Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the Government are not providing military training to any country that is in breach of any UN resolution, in particular to Indonesia which, as the Secretary of State will I am sure know from seeing the documentary "Death of a Nation", has carried out a policy of genocide against the people of East Timor?

Mr. Rifkind: There have been times when we have provided training to Indonesia, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take into account the human rights record and other activities of any Government in determining whether military training would be appropriate.

Mr. Devlin: Is not it the case that many countries in the third world and the Caribbean, and especially some in Asia such as Nepal, have close links with this country because of the long-standing co-operation in military matters that we have undertaken with them? Will not the fact that many of their senior officers have been trained at British military academies provide a good basis for a relationship for us in the future?

Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case. Some of the most impressive training that we have provided has been to the new Governments in Zimbabwe and Namibia and it has enabled the integration of the various elements of their armed forces. We are, of course, currently providing a similar service in South Africa at the request of the South African Government and the African National Congress.

Menwith Hill

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he has refused permission for a group of Labour hon. Members from Yorkshire to visit Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire.

Mr. Hanley: For operational and security reasons, such visits are not in general allowed.

Mr. Madden: Is not it extraordinary that British Ministers should refuse elected Members of the British Parliament the opportunity to visit bases on British soil? Were British Ministers afraid of the information that American personnel might give us or did they feel that we could not be trusted with the mess silver?

Mr. Hanley: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few years ago, when I was a little younger and when I was chairman of the North Yorkshire Freedom Association, I organised a rather successful anti-CND demonstration at Menwith Hill? Is he further aware that, at that time, the station authorities refused access to the CND squatters camping outside? Does not it make perfect sense for the authorities now to refuse access to mischief-making Labour Members of Parliament with CND sympathies?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right but I can tell him one thing: were a group of Conservative Members of Parliament to apply to visit Menwith Hill, it would receive the same response as the group of Labour Members.

Mr. Cryer: Is not one of the outrageous truths about Menwith Hill that it has never received any authority from Parliament and that it is operated by a foreign power, whether or not that foreign power is sympathetic? Therefore, it should be accountable to the House. Is not the Minister denying democratic accountability through the House by refusing to allow Members of Parliament to go to what is a secret eavesdropper on telecommunications from the United Kingdom, which operates without any implied or expressed authority from the House of Commons?

Mr. Hanley: It is a Ministry of Defence-owned property and it is Ministry of Defence controlled. Therefore—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have you been there?

Mr. Hanley: I spent a day there on 27 January. There is no lack of democratic accountability. There have been 40 questions in two years on that subject—four tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). If he were to request something such as an Adjournment debate, the matter may be discussed further. Opposition Members have not taken the democratic opportunities available to them.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Menwith Hill base is an extremely important communications centre for the North Atlantic alliance and that we should be grateful for the security that we obtain from the presence of the United States service men and our own RAF service men at that base? Is he aware of the number of jobs that emanate from the workings of the base and that excellent relationships exist between United States servicemen and the people of Harrogate?

Mr. Hanley: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Menwith Hill is vital to the security of the United Kingdom and to the United States and nothing is done there that is not consistent with the security of the United Kingdom. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the jobs because there are 600 United Kingdom nationals and 1,200 United States nationals and therefore there is a considerable community. Relations in the area are absolutely excellent.

Nuclear Arms Reductions

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contributions the Government are making towards the process of strategic nuclear arms reductions.

Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom maintains only the minimum deterrent required for our security needs. If in the future there were further substantial reductions in United States and former Soviet strategic stockpiles and if defensive capabilities had not significantly enhanced, we would consider what further contributions we might make to nuclear arms control.

Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but earlier he announced that the firepower of Trident is about equal to that of the Polaris system that it replaces. However, the Trident system has more warheads, it is more accurate and those warheads can be independently targeted. What sort of message does the Secretary of State think that that sends out to other nations as we approach the non-proliferation treaty extension conference in 1995?

Mr. Rifkind: Trident certainly has a substantial capability, but we have made it clear that the warheads that will be carried by Trident will have a destructive yield approximately the same as that of Polaris. It is precisely because of the self-restraint that we are exercising that we are able to send the kind of signal to the international community that the hon. Gentleman ought to be supporting.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the world is full of military turbulence and uncertainty at the moment and that, while we have the Trident submarine lurking beneath the oceans of the world ready to deliver an unacceptable response to anyone who may attack the United Kingdom or our allies, we are safe?

Mr. Rifkind: Not only is that correct, but the reality is that even Russia and the United States, when they have fully implemented all their commitments under START, will each have 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which illustrates the need for the United Kingdom to maintain its own national deterrent.

United States Forces

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet the United States Defence Secretary to discuss deployment of United States forces in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rifkind: I spoke to Dr. Perry earlier this week. We discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that 29 American bases and facilities have closed over the past five years, with disastrous effects on local economies, adding to the existing effects of the loss of British defence jobs? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks to the United States Secretary of State, will he obtain details of the ․1.5 billion that the Americans spend on defence conversion, and learn something from them?

Mr. Rifkind: When the hon. Gentleman complains about the effects of American base closures he should remember that he belongs to a party which calls for far more serious reductions in British defence. He should also

be aware that our resettlement policies for people who leave the armed forces are the most generous in the world —considerably more so than those in the United States.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind people that in 1945 the United States forces went home, and that it was only the Berlin airlift of 1948 that brought them back to the United Kingdom? We should never repeat that mistake. While the world is unstable, we require the presence of the United States and other NATO allies in order to deter.

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, the United States has sent its forces to help in the defence of Europe three times this century. Once it was because of a threat from communism, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. On the two other occasions, the threats to Europe were of a different order. That suggests that the links and the mutual interest between north America and western Europe antedated the cold war, and will continue to have relevance in the years ahead, although communism is no longer in Europe. Europe's security is of great importance to the United States, which justifies the continuation of the Atlantic alliance.

Dr. Godman: The Secretary of State knows that the United States navy has departed from Holy Loch, but that occasionally its submarines come back into United Kingdom waters. Is he satisfied that when United States nuclear submarines are sailing in our waters their officers stick rigidly at all times to the code of practice for the safety of our fishing vessels?

Mr. Rifkind: We expect all submarines to take into account the crucial importance of protecting the fishermen operating in those areas, and I have no reason to believe that the United States is anything other than conscientious with regard to those obligations.

Tracker Radar

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer on 11 January, Official Report, column 8, if he is yet in a position to place the order for the conversion of type 911 tracker radars.

Mr. Aitken: I am pleased to announce that formal contractual discussions with Marconi Radar and Control Systems of Chelmsford have commenced. Contract placement with the company will depend on the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, which I hope will not take much longer to finalise.

Mr. Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely reassuring answer for my constituents. May I urge him to ensure that there are no subsequent hiccups, and that the contract is wrapped up, signed, sealed and delivered as quickly as possible? Can my hon. Friend say how large he expects the contract to be, as it is crucially important for job security and for the safeguarding of employment in Chelmsford and elsewhere?

Mr. Aitken: In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, which he is right to raise—he has been vocal on behalf of his constituents in support of the contract—although obviously the value will depend on price negotiations, I expect it to be about £20 million. I share his hopes about getting the contract signed, sealed


and delivered as soon as possible, but I must add that the ball is rather in the company's court and that it takes two to tango.

Minehunters

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends to take to ensure value for money in tendering for new minehunters.

Mr. Aitken: To secure best value for money, competitive tenders have been invited from all United Kingdom warship builders for a core batch of four Sandown class single-role minehunters, with options for three more.

Mr. Denham: The Minister will be aware that Vosper Thornycroft of Southampton will be anxious to submit a competitive bid for those orders. Will he also acknowledge that investment both by the Government and by Vosper Thornycroft has given that shipyard a world lead in many areas of naval technology, benefiting both the Royal Navy and British export orders? In the light of recent press speculation, will the Minister take great care before allocating any naval orders to foreign-owned shipyards which could possibly undercut Vosper Thornycroft's position in world export markets?

Mr. Aitken: First, I share the hon. Gentleman's understandable pride as a constituency Member of Parliament in the achievements of Vosper Thornycroft. I visited the company, and I regard it as not only a British leader in its field but a world leader. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can assure him that, so far as I know, we have no intention of contemplating awarding British warship orders to foreign yards. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may take some comfort from the fact that we have excluded foreign hulls from this particular competition. It will be a British built contract for Sandown class minehunters.

Infantry Battalions

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average emergency tour plot interval for an infantry battalion.

Mr. Hanley: The average emergency tour interval for infantry battalions in 1993–94 is 17 months. On the basis of current commitments, we expect this to rise to 20 months in 1994–95, and to 30 months thereafter.

Mr. Clarke: Can the Minister confirm that 24 months minimum to allow the battalions to do their training is the figure for which we should aim?

Mr. Hanley: Certainly, 24 months is the target when we have completed the draw-down in 1995–96.

Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large number of applications for voluntary redundancies reveals how low morale is currently in the armed forces, and that this is caused by overstretch and the number of emergency tours because there are insufficient troops currently in our Army?

Mr. Hanley: The large number of voluntary redundancies is, first, a measure of the generosity of the voluntary redundancy terms and, secondly, the sign of an improved economy outside.

Dr. Reid: At a time when there is chronic overstretch among our infantry battalions and when our young men in Bosnia have their patriotism rewarded by being sacked while under fire, is it not deplorable that Ministers have sanctioned the spending of more than £1 million on four houses to be refurbished for the top brass of the RAF? Is that what they mean by putting the front line first?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the redundancies which were announced were the third phase of the Army redundancies as part of the "Options for Change" programme. They were an orderly reduction of the forces that we have at our command. We need to recruit more as well to keep the flow through and the talent coming in. As for the latter question, I refuse to answer.

Hydographic Service

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to acquire ships and equipment for the Hydrographic Service.

Mr. Aitken: We recognise the importance to the Royal Navy of a continuing specialist hydrographic capability. We therefore plan to replace our current specialist hydrographic vessels and equipment as this becomes necessary.

Mr. Luff: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient resources available to the Hydrographic Service to meet its current survey requirements, never mind the new requirements that will be imposed on Britain if we ratify the United Nations law of the sea convention, as I hope that we shall?

Mr. Aitken: Yes, I am satisfied that the hydrographic squadron is able to meet our established defence hydrography requirement. It may also be possible to divert Royal Navy hydrography vessels from defence tasks to contribute to other hydrographic work. Our current review of the excellent Hydrographic Service is also considering further possibilities such as bare-boat chartering with Royal Navy crews.
Issues relating to the United Nations law of the sea convention are the responsibility of the Foreign Office, but I have noted my hon. Friend's point and will pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Bosnia

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total number of military personnel in Bosnia in each of the last 12 months.

Mr. Rifkind: The number of personnel deployed in support of operations in Bosnia fluctuates, of course, but on average over the last year there have been some 2,300 personnel on the ground. This has recently been increased to 2,450.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are the Government resisting the use or increased use in Bosnia of forces from Russia, the Ukraine or Turkey?

Mr. Rifkind: Both Russia and the Ukraine are currently in Bosnia. We believe that they carry out a valuable role and are making a useful contribution to meeting the United Nations requirements. Until now, Turkey has not been


invited to send forces to Bosnia. This partly reflects Turkey's historical involvement in the region, but it is, of course, a matter for the United Nations to decide.

Mr. Budgen: If the number of our forces in Bosnia rises to 3,500, what will be the extra cost to the British taxpayer of stationing those troops?

Mr. Rifkind: If we find it appropriate to announce any increase in the British contribution in Bosnia, we shall be happy at that time to comment on the financial implications.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In the circumstances, how can the Secretary of State justify sending redundancy notices to soldiers on active service in Bosnia, such as my constituent Alistair Charntler, who was given no reason for the redundancy notice that he received on 24 February and no indication as to why he had been selected for compulsory redundancy?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Lady consults the Army, she will find that it believes that it would be intolerable for liability for redundancy to depend on whether a soldier was serving at any given moment in Bosnia, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or elsewhere. It is appropriate that these matters be considered in relation to the needs of the armed forces and the personal qualifications and ability of the individual soldier. I believe that the Army's view is entirely correct and justified in that respect.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that one sixth of our armed forces are tied up in Northern Ireland and that there are disturbances elsewhere in the world which may require a response, if my right hon. and learned Friend authorises more troops to go to Bosnia, will be bear in mind that there is already considerable fear of overstretch in the British armed forces? Is there not a particular need to make sure that our armed forces have full supplies and logistic support?

Mr. Rifkind: Our commitments in Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom, will always take precedence over our commitments elsewhere, and Northern Ireland must have first call upon Her Majesty's forces if necessary. With regard to any further deployment of forces to Bosnia, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will bear in mind the importance of maintaining the objective of ensuring that there is a 24-month interval between emergency tours, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces suggested a few moments ago.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to states that are currently non-nuclear.

Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we play a full part in encouraging those countries that have not yet acceded to the treaty to do so.

Mr. McAllion: Can the Minister not understand that threatening the peoples of other countries with mass destruction serves only to ensure that those countries develop their own weapons of mass destruction to respond to that threat? When will the Government take the only

step that matters in reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons and announce their intention to scrap the costly, wasteful and useless Trident system?

Mr. Hanley: I hear the authentic voice of the Labour party. The United Kingdom plays an active part in defusing regional tensions that might encourage proliferation. Along with other non-proliferation treaty co-depositaries such as the United States and Russia, and in concert with G7 countries, NATO allies and our European Community partners, we are seeking an unconditional and indefinite extension to the non-proliferation treaty.

Mr. Salmond: How can the United Kingdom keep a straight face in international negotiations on the proliferation of nuclear weapons while the Government, ably supported by the Labour Front Bench, hang on to the expensive and useless military plaything that is the Trident missile system?

Mr. Hanley: That useless military plaything not only defends the United Kingdom and far further, but gives thousands of jobs to the country that the hon. Gentleman is meant to be trying to support.

European Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest position as regards both the EF2000 project and the Hercules large aircraft replacement.

Mr. Aitken: Both projects are making satisfactory progress.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is well aware that a large number of my constituents work at British Aerospace in Warton on the EF2000. Will he say how many jobs in the north-east depend on that project and on any involvement that British Aerospace may have in future large aircraft?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the project to employment in the north-west and in his constituency. Some 300 British companies are involved in the Eurofighter project as sub-contractors. That means that there are some 9,000 jobs in the development phase of EF2000. At peak production, we estimate that some 28,000 people will be employed on the project in Britain and some 60,000 in Europe.

Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that the delay of more than two years in the Eurofighter 2000 project will mean not only that there could be a loss of valuable exports of that product, but that the Royal Air Force will have to continue to maintain aging aircraft until Eurofighter comes into service? [Interruption.] How many millions of pounds extra will we have to spend on maintaining those aging aircraft because of the delay with Eurofighter?

Mr. Aitken: The cheers for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were so loud that I missed part of the question. The delays that the hon. Gentleman criticises are to allow us make absolutely sure that all the lessons are learnt from the technological difficulties with similar projects, such as the Gripen. The manufacturers are simply taking care that the flight control software is in perfect condition for the first flight, which is now expected in


April. Neither the manufacturers nor the Governments concerned should be criticised in any way for taking care to ensure that everything is perfect before the first flight.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Department of Health examines carefully the Audit Commission report published today, which shows that £425 million could be saved on the national health service drugs bill if doctors reassessed their prescribing requirements?

The Prime Minister: We spend something over £15 billion a year on drugs in the primary care sector, so it is in everyone's interests to have cost-effective prescribing. As the report shows, our general practitioners are among the most cost-effective prescribers in the world, although I believe that there is still room for improvement.

Mr. John Smith: At a time when, regrettably, there are so many innocent victims of crime, why are the Government intent on pushing through, in less than four weeks from now, a major weakening of the criminal injuries compensation scheme by substituting a crude tariff system for the proper assessment of damages suffered by victims?
Is the Prime Minister aware that a police officer who was seriously injured in a criminal attack was awarded £121,000 last year under the existing scheme, but would be entitled to only £7,500 under the new scheme? What justification can there be for that?

The Prime Minister: I do not have those precise figures in front of me, but we are seeking to change and make more efficient and effective the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It has met with many delays, while the amount of compensation was determined. We are seeking to produce a better, more effective and more efficient scheme that provides for speedier compensation.

Mr. John Smith: I notice that the Prime Minister did not attempt to justify the change that will result. May I ask him directly why future loss of earnings and future costs of medical care are to be excluded completely from damages when, in the case of badly injured people, those are perhaps the most important losses? Is it not bad enough that crime has doubled under the Government without making the victims pay for it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the actions that we have taken against crime have been effective and efficient and have often been opposed by him and his party. I need no lectures from him about crime. What we are seeking to do is to make a more effective and efficient system fairer between both the recipient of assistance and the taxpayer.

Mr. John Smith: So that the Prime Minister understands the issue involved, may I remind him of the case of Mrs. Slater, a young wife with two children who saw her husband murdered at her front door? She was awarded £137,000 under the existing scheme. Under the Prime Minister's proposals that lady would get £17,000. Why should she lose £120,000 in a Government cost-cutting exercise? We hear constantly from the right hon. Gentleman about the victims of crime. Unless he withdraws the scheme he will be guilty of hypocritical humbug.

The Prime Minister: We have one of the most generous systems of assistance in the world in terms of criminal injuries compensation, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We are seeking to make sure that it is more efficient and more effective and that the compensation is paid more speedily than at any stage in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor were saying recently that they would enter into no more spending commitments until they knew how those commitments could be met. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman broken his own edict yet again?

Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one sure way of improving performance in our schools is to publish examination results? Is he aware that at the weekend the Labour party pledged that it would scrap such performance tables, depriving parents in Worcestershire and the rest of the country of information that they need and deserve when taking important decisions about their children's future'?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that publishing that information acts as a spur to higher standards. It also throws the spotlight on the quality of teaching in many schools. I regret very much that Labour Members wish to remove this right, that they do not trust parents with the information and therefore wish to keep them in the dark. But it is not a question just of performance tables. In the same speech, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) promised to scrap grant-maintained schools, thereby removing from hundreds of thousands of parents the right that the Government have given them. And it is not just the Labour party: the Liberals would join in the introduction of that repressive legislation.

Mr. Ashdown: There will be a warm welcome for the Government's decision this morning to respond to General Rose's request for reinforcements in Bosnia and, indeed, for the fact that this afternoon the United Nations has taken control of Tuzla airport. As the job in Bosnia is not to reinforce failure but to strengthen success, is it not now vital that other nations follow Britain's lead and would it not be helpful if the United States were to do so?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have been leading diplomatic efforts to help the United Nations to secure reinforcements. As I told the House a few days ago, we are prepared to provide more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort. The right hon. Gentleman is right about Tuzla


airport: an important objective has been met. This will assist the aid operation, and we shall provide an aircraft specially to take aid into Tuzla.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commonwealth as a whole has a great contribution to make to the causes of peace, democracy and stability, especially in southern Africa at this very sensitive time? As we approach Commonwealth day, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the United Kingdom's commitment to the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to do so. At both the last two Commonwealth conferences we proposed reforms to make the Commonwealth a good deal more relevant and bring it up to date. Relationships within the Commonwealth are better than they have been for many years. As my hon. Friend referred to South Africa, let me say that many of us look forward to that country's first democratic elections which will be held in April and, I hope, to South Africa's wishing to return to the Commonwealth in due course.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Prime Minister explain why, in 1994, it is necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) to introduce a private Member's Bill to provide basic civil rights for the disabled? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider backing that humane Bill so that it may become part of the law of the land?

The Prime Minister: As I have indicated on other occasions, the Government have done a great deal for disabled people—rightly so—and we certainly intend to do more. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes on access, on social security, on education—[ Interruption.] If Opposition Members will wait, they will get an answer. The hon. Gentleman will be aware also of the changes in relation to employment. It is a rolling programme. We share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have put in place a number of measures to do this. Of course we shall examine carefully the Bill of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry). There will be a debate on Friday, after which I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions, what it would achieve, what it would mean, what it would cost and those parts of it that are appropriate.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that during the 1960s and 1970s the Labour party spent a great deal of taxpayers' money on overseas aid, but achieved very little benefit for the people of this country in return? Will he take pride in the fact that nowadays, under a Conservative Government, we make sure that the British taxpayer and work force benefit from our policy of linking trade with aid?

The Prime Minister: We have a very high-quality aid programme, a small portion of which is linked, under the aid and trade provisions, with trade with appropriate countries. Aid and trade provision has existed since the late

1970s. It is appropriate, it works well both for the recipient countries and for British exporting prospects, and I look to see it continue.

Iraq

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Yeltsin about United Nations action in Iraq.

The Prime Minister: I did not specifically raise this subject with President Yeltsin during my recent visit, but Russian policy is in line with our own on this subject. We are in contact on a day-to-day basis with Russia and with our other G7 colleagues on this particular matter.

Mr. Dalyell: May I thank the Prime Minister for making time to see me in his room last Thursday about the appalling malnutrition and infant mortality problem in the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates? Since disease knows no boundaries and since there is the likelihood of a sweltering summer, can he do anything about the urgently needed water filtering and pumping equipment and the list of much-needed pharmaceuticals that I handed to him on that occasion?

The Prime Minister: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern for the people of Iraq, which he sees as quite distinct from the present leadership of the Government of Iraq. I share his concern about the people there. Since April 1991, we have spent more than £60 million on aid for Iraqi citizens, including food, essential medicines, heating supplies and help with agricultural projects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue with our aid programme and with the exemptions for food and medicines from the embargo, and that I will look at the specific point that he raised with me.

Engagements

Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Spring: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that manufacturing output rose by some 1.1 per cent. in January, well above expectations, and that in difficult world trading conditions it is the policies of low inflation, low interest rates and low corporate taxation that has made Britain a beacon of success in the world? [HON. MEMBERS: "That's a hard one, John."]

The Prime Minister: Just relax. My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no doubt that the manufacturing figures today show that manufacturing output is sharply up. That is very encouraging, and it was considerably above expectations. We have seen a strong export performance particularly to non-Community countries in recent months, but equally to many European Community countries, despite the fact that their markets are in recession and are reducing in overall size. I am delighted that we are making more and selling more at home and selling more abroad.

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the answer that I was given on 1 March, which showed that during the past three years some 13 rescue operations have been carried out by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft in the territorial waters of the Irish Republic? Will he impress on Mr. Reynolds the importance of extending such co-operation to save the lives of innocent people, especially from terrorism, as the forces co-operate with the Crown forces?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are constantly reviewing the co-operation with the Garda and with other elements of the security forces in the Republic of Ireland. Co-operation today is better than it has been at any stage in the past and I will continue to seek further improvement. There is a regular and good liaison specifically between the United Kingdom search and rescue authorities and the Irish marine emergency services which specifically includes a regular

exchange of information and participation in the appropriate joint committees, so I believe that the liaison is extremely good at present. Of course, I will seek to ensure that that remains good and is improved wherever possible.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend remind his G7 colleagues that there are really only three ways in which Governments can help to foster jobs—the promotion of sound finances, the deregulation of national economies and the encouragement of maximum flexibility in labour markets?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. If we wish to have jobs that last rather than temporary jobs, we need free trade, competitive industries and a flexible labour market. That is what we have now attained and that is, I believe, the principal reason why we are the only country in the European Union where unemployment is falling and seems to be on a firm downward trend.

Points of Order

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising out of Question Time. You will have heard that on question 12, in accordance with your strictures, I asked one simple question concerning the justification for the expenditure of more than £1 million on the refurbishment of four houses for four members of the top brass of the armed forces at a time when there were infantry cutbacks. The response that I received from the Minister was, "I refuse to answer," in spite of the fact that his own officials are already answering questions on the same subject from Sunday newspapers, including The Mail on Sunday. Is it in order for Ministers to refuse to answer limited and legitimate questions which do not affect national security while their own officials are doing so?

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not ask one specific question; he asked two specific questions. I answered the first half. He did not give me notice that he was going to ask the second half, and it was not relevant to the first. May I say, Madam Speaker— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hanley: There has been some very unfair press speculation, but the matter is being considered by legal experts and no doubt we will report to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Madam Speaker: We will leave the matter there.

Mr. John Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the first time that I have raised a point of order in a career of 20 years in the House because—

Madam Speaker: I have never raised one in 21 years.

Mr. Garrett: —because I regard most of them as spurious, but I think that for the one that I am about to raise you, Madam Speaker, are the only possible point of reference.
This morning, in a hearing of the Treasury Select Committee, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to allow the Treasury Select Committee to undertake a direct survey of civil servants. He quoted in evidence, as his authority, a civil service management code which has no force of law, which has never been approved by the House and which was simply written by his civil servants. I think that that is an affront to the House, and that the distinguished Treasury Select Committee should be allowed to inquire into the opinion and attitudes of civil servants. I think that you, Madam Speaker, should rule against that abuse of power by the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not know, but it is in fact an internal matter for the Committee, and it is for that Committee, if it wishes to do so, to make a report to the House. The Chair does not intervene in Committee proceedings. It is for the Committee, if it is not satisfied with those proceedings, to report the matter to the House and we then take it from there. Those are the procedures.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not the first point of order that I have ever raised, but it is important.
It may not be immediately apparent to you, Madam Speaker, that on a regular basis throughout Prime Minister's Question Time, to your right and behind you, alongside the civil servants' Box, a number of people, usually Government Whips, are stationed standing and operating as professional hecklers. I do not complain about hecklers in the House as it raises the atmosphere, but, apart from the rudeness of blocking the civil servants' view, is it not totally out of order to heckle from a standing position? Is it not time that the Government got a grip on their Whips?

Madam Speaker: There are occasions on which I do have eyes in the back of my head. I am perfectly aware of what is happening behind me. Professional people may be standing there, but you also have a professional Speaker in the Chair. I have dealt with them from time to time and I shall continue to do so whenever necessary.

Dr. Reid: Further to my earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of what the Minister said—[Interruption.] It is a genuine point of order. The first answer which the Minister gave was a blocking order, which means that, when we attempt to table questions at the Table Office, they will not be accepted because the Minister had told the House that he would not answer questions. He said, "I have nothing to add. I will not answer that." However, he has subsequently come to the Dispatch Box and given an explanation in exchanges on a point of order.
Will you, Madam Speaker, rule on whether questions on the expenditure of £1 million to refurbish four houses, legitimately placed at the Table Office, will be blocked or unblocked in the light of what the Minister has said?

Mr. Hanley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I remind you, with great respect, that the main question was,
What is the current average emergency tour plot interval for an infantry battalion?
The hon. Gentleman abused our procedures by referring to RAF accommodation, and it was on those grounds that I refused to answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. We must end the matter there. All those matters are and will be taken into account by the Table Office when questions are tabled. I cannot allow an extension of Question Time at this stage.

Energy Conservation (Lighting)

Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote more efficient lighting and the consequent beneficial effects on the environment.
Over the past six years, concern for the environment has resulted in many different measures being taken by the Government and others to encourage a more responsible attitude by both business and individuals towards the damage which their actions may cause the natural world. Over the same period, I have introduced four Bills that have concentrated on the environment, particularly on how individuals can contribute towards better environmental practices.
The Bill follows on from those earlier Bills. It is simply designed to encourage people to use less energy when they light their homes. After heating, lighting is the main consumer of electricity in Britain. If we could use a more energy-efficient means of lighting our homes, we would considerably reduce our emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That would make it much easier for this country to meet its international targets for emissions, particularly those associated with carbon dioxide, which will be particularly hard to meet in present circumstances.
Energy-efficient lighting has been with us for some time in many public buildings. Only in the past few years, however, has it been available in any variety to the domestic market. The Bill is designed to encourage its further use in the following ways: first, building regulations administered by local authorities would include a requirement for all new domestic buildings and extensions to existing ones to be fitted with energy-efficient lighting where practical; secondly, it would allow local authorities to extend the use of the home energy efficiency scheme to include the purchase of such lighting; thirdly, it would encourage loans from the social fund available to people on income support to be used for such lighting as well.
The positive effect on the environment if energy-efficient lighting is used in people's homes is dramatic. If one energy-efficient light were fitted per household in the United Kingdom, the total number of lights would be 22 million. We could save 1,320 MW of electricity, which is

the equivalent of the output of one large coal-fired or oil-fired power station. If such a station were shut down, our CO2 emissions would be reduced by 1.3 million tonnes per year. There would also be substantial reductions in the emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.
The effect on people's pockets of energy-efficient lighting being used in their homes is even more dramatic. While an energy-efficient light costs between £6 and £14, compared with 50p for an ordinary light, it lasts eight times longer than an ordinary bulb and is five times more efficient. That would mean a saving in running costs of more than £10 a year if a 100 watt light were replaced by its energy-efficient equivalent. Even taking into account the difference in cost of the two lights, there is still a saving of more than £4 per bulb in the first year. That means that, for an average single person's electricity bill of £200, the purchase of four energy-efficient lights more than offsets the extra cost of VAT on electricity and, over a period of five years, saves such a person £100.
The message behind the Bill is simple. I want the Government to recognise the advantages to their energy-efficiency programme and their wider environmental objectives of encouraging and promoting the increased use of energy-efficient lighting.
I also want individuals to recognise that, regardless of any persuading by the Government, it is in their own interests to use energy-efficient lighting. Indeed, rather than paying large sums up front to electricity companies to avoid paying VAT, people can pay less on energy-efficient lighting, pay the VAT and still show an appreciable saving in their energy costs. At the very least, when an ordinary light next fails in people's houses, they should seriously consider buying an energy-efficient one.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. A.J. Beith, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Roy Thomason, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Harold Elletson.

ENERGY CONSERVATION (LIGHTING)

Mr. Keith Mans accordingly presented a Bill to promote more efficient lighting and the consequent beneficial effects on the environment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW TEST OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transition to the test of incapacity for work provided for by sections 5 and 6 above.

Nothing in the following provisions of this section shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power.

(2) In this section—

"commencement" means the commencement of those sections; and
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.

(3) Regulations under this section may provide—

(a) that days of incapacity for work before commencement, and such other days as may be prescribed, shall be taken into account for the purposes of section 171B(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (period after which the all work test applies);
(b) that a person's continued enjoyment after commencement of any allowance or other advantage under any provision for the purposes of which Part XIIA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies shall, except as may be prescribed, be subject to satisfying the test of incapacity for work under that Part; and
(c) for the determination in accordance with that Part of the question whether the person is incapable of work.

(4) Section 175(2) to (4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (general provisions as to regulations and orders) apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations.

(5) For the period of three years from Royal Assent a statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

(6) A statutory instrument—

(a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions)
any regulations made under this section, and
(b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Burt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Mr. Burt: This afternoon and this evening we should complete the Commons stage of the Bill, which has been considered in Committee. I think that all parties accepted that it was a good Committee, which was speedily completed. We had good debates, and we have a range of issues to discuss today. In Committee there was a certain amount of give and take on both sides, which I am sure will be reflected in our discussions today.
The new clause and the two amendments grouped with

it relate to the regulation-making powers for transitional arrangements. There are a number of complex sectors in the Bill that we propose to deal with in regulations, including the new test of incapacity and the transitional arrangements. As a result of new clause 1, there are now three clauses covering the transitional arrangements arising from the Bill. It may be helpful if I explain why.
Essentially, clause 4 continues to make provision for the main body of regulations concerning the transition from existing sickness and invalidity benefit to the new incapacity benefit. The following provisions introduce the new benefit.
As currently drafted, clause 11 provides general powers to deal with the preparation for or the coming into force of the Bill. The intention was that subsection (2) would deal with the introduction of the new medical test in areas of social security other than incapacity benefit.
However, new clause 1 will now deal with the transition from the existing test of incapacity to the new test of incapacity for all benefits other than incapacity benefit. It is intended that it will follow clauses 5 and 6, which introduce the new test of incapacity for work. Regulations under both clause 4 and the new clause will be affirmative resolutions procedure for three years after Royal Assent.
It is our intention that the powers in the new clause should be capable of being exercised long after the Bill comes into force. The wording in subsection (1) mirrors that of clause 4(1). While, of course, the Government aim to cover every aspect of the transfer to the new test in the first set of regulations, experience has shown that we do not always anticipate every eventuality. We therefore need a power that does not restrict its exercise to the coming into force of the Bill.
Clause 11, as amended by amendments 15 and 16, comes towards the end of the Bill and provides a general power to make transition regulations which will be negative procedure—for example, amending existing regulations on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit.
In Committee, hon. Members expressed concern about the breadth of the powers in the Bill to make regulations. As I have already explained, the purpose of new clause 1 is to restrict the power to make regulations for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work in other benefits, separating this power from the general power to make regulations in clause 11.
Although clause 11 will still contain general powers, amendment 15 prevents its application where regulations should properly have been drafted under the specific powers contained in clause 4 and new clause 1.
New subsection (5) gives effect to the main difference between the powers set out in clause 11(2) and that in new clause 1; it sets out that the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution for three years from the date of Royal Assent. That provision mirrors my commitment in Committee to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and brings the power into line with other regulation-making powers which are the subject of later Government amendments.
Transitional arrangements are often complex. We need to ensure that powers are drawn widely enough so that the regulations deal adequately and fairly with the wide variety of individual circumstances. However, the Government recognise the legitimate concern of Parliament that powers should not be too broadly drawn. Therefore, the purpose of


new clause 1 is to separate it from the general power in clause 11 and to make its exercise subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Keith Bradley: It is ironic that Government new clause 1 deals with yet more powers to bring in yet more regulations. We have complained bitterly throughout the progress of the Bill —from Second Reading, through Committee Stage and now on Report and Third Reading. It is about time that the Government introduced primary legislation properly amendable by the House, instead of sneaking in new legislation through the back door by regulation.
We are confronted again with the Government's failure properly to consider the matters before us. This afternoon, they are seeking extra powers to introduce regulations, which, it should be stressed, are unamendable.

Mr. Burt: You asked for them.

Mr. Bradley: No, we did not. We asked that the Government introduce the Bill by primary legislation, enabling to us amend it, and for proper and thorough-going debate and proper recognition by the House about its effects. Yet again, they have failed. I believe that the way they are introducing the legislation is an abuse of Parliament.
As I stressed, and as the Minister said, the new clause covers transitional arrangements. He has admitted that transitional arrangements between the current arrangements for invalidity benefit and the new incapacity benefit are particularly complicated.
When we were debating transitional arrangements in Committee, we flagged up potential problems with the transitional arrangements. The Government agreed that they were complicated, but we expected them to give due consideration to the issues we would raise, and table proper amendments on Report so that the House could be clear on how the transitional arrangements would work in practise.
Instead, they are using the device of regulation, because they have not thoroughly thought through the implications, and they hope that, by the time they introduce the regulations, they will have sorted out the problems. But I warn the Minister that we have bitter experience of a recent piece of legislation—as does the Minister; I hate to mention the Child Support Agency so soon—where ill thought out legislation means that the Government must table hurried amendments and changes to regulations. They still do not understand their full implications.
The Minister introduced changes in the arrangements for collection of maintenance by the CSA. It has now been realised that, because of those changes, many mothers will lose on their family credit, because family credit is not reassessed for six months. Under the current arrangements, there will be a delay before their family credit is reassessed. Many mothers could lose up to £50 a week because of the phasing in of the maintenance payments and the reassessment of family credit not flowing from that new arrangement.
The Government have not thought through the implication of the welcome change of phasing in of maintenance, and have not recognised the implications of that elsewhere in the system—for example, on family credit. I hope that the Minister will quickly introduce new

changes to the proposals to ensure that family credit is reassessed immediately, so that mothers do not lose and are not further penalised by the phasing in of maintenance.
I see that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, and I welcome that. I hope that he will carefully consider that point on the CSA. I do not wish to pursue it, because that is not the business before us: I merely use it as an example to show that, if one introduces regulations that are hurriedly conceived and ill thought out, one stores up future difficulties for the Government in the implementation of the legislation.
The new clause is welcome, because the Government have introduced the concession they promised in Committee—that the affirmative resolution will apply for these new regulations. That is clearly to be welcomed, but it seems to be one of the few concessions to have been introduced on Report.
I believe that the way in which the Bill has been handled, and the speed with which it has been brought out of Committee, has not allowed proper scrutiny of our deliberations in Committee or an opportunity for the Opposition fully to appreciate the implications of some of the concessions that were made. The Government's failure to table any amendments until late on Friday afternoon allows only limited time for the Opposition to consider our position and table our own amendments.
In Committee, the Government made a series of concessions, and we shall question the Government on them. There are difficulties because of the nature of the proposed legislation. There is little on the face of the Bill —for example, the medical test, the definition of incapacity, and the whole way in which the medical test in relationship to key groups of people will operate in practice are not there. There are difficulties anyway, but it is equally awkward when the Government are not prepared to table specific amendments to the proposed legislation to set out clearly the intentions in some of the concessions that have been made.
Let me ask the Government a specific question. I hope that they will not suggest the use of alternative regulations, but will consider the matter in the spirit of the regulatory nature of the legislation.
In Committee, when we discussed amendments Nos. 17 and 18 to clause 1, we had an interesting debate about the fast-tracking of people with terminal illnesses or prescribed conditions, and those in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, to the higher rate of incapacity benefit—without their having to wait a whole year for full payment. In a sense, we are talking about transitional arrangements in those proposals and in the regulations.
On 8 February, in Committee, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said:
I will indicate the cost of the two amendments, although in this particular case I shall not argue that the costs are such that they should be a compelling factor in deciding the outcome of this debate … I shall certainly give careful consideration to the points that were made this morning".—[Official Report,Standing Committee E, 8 February 1994; c. 71–3.]
Will the Minister give us some idea of how the terminally ill and those with prescribed conditions can be fast-tracked through to the higher rate of incapacity benefit?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. I am sure that all hon. Members have come across cases that should have been dealt with by that fast track system but have not, and which have not


been resolved before the tragic deaths of the individuals concerned. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Government have done enough research to be sure that they understand the problems? Can we now be certain that those problems will not arise in future?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a key issue. He has raised it before, as have many more of my hon. Friends in regard to constituency cases: they have felt that the Government have not addressed the issue properly.
In Committee, we were encouraged by the fact that the Government clearly understood the issue. We were led to believe that they would present specific proposals on Report to deal with the problems, and we are disappointed that they have not. They may intend to include such arrangements in the regulations. As I keep saying, without having the regulations before us, we find it difficult to make a judgment about the extent of the Government's commitment.
I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to this issue, which is causing so much anxiety to my hon. Friends' constituents and others throughout the country. We are dealing with a specific group of people. The Minister was sympathetic in Committee; I hope that, although the Government have failed to table an appropriate amendment at this stage, they will now give us some comfort by recognising the problem that has been raised. I hope that they will not renege on the concession they made in Committee, when we were told that that problem would be specifically addressed.
I do not wish to delay the House. As the new clause and amendments give the Government yet more powers to introduce more amendments later by means of regulations, we shall have to wait for those regulations, and in the best way possible—by means of the parliamentary process—debate them at that stage. Let me stress again that we are greatly disappointed that the Government are to act in this way, and that the new clause and amendments do not contain the substance that we would expect at this stage of our deliberations.
After the Bill completes its passage tonight, the other place may well take up the points that we have made, and may want to ask some serious questions about the way in which the Government choose to introduce measures through the back door by means of regulation rather than through primary legislation. Primary legislation is the traditional method; it is much more sensible and satisfactory, and, I suggest, is of much more benefit to the public, because it allows a clear understanding of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill is important because it has no precedent—I challenge anyone to produce one. There is no precedent in the history of the British social security system for abolishing a long-term contributory benefit. Many benefits have been amended or changed, but this is the first time in the century-long history of the British social security system that a contributory benefit has been abolished.
4 pm
Let us consider the arrogant detail of the new clause that we are being asked to accept. It amounts to a dictator's charter. It states:

The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to him to be necessary"—
not as appears to Parliament or to the nation but as appears to him to be necessary—
or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transition to the test of incapacity for work provided for by sections 5 and 6 above.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State absolute powers. It continues:
Nothing in the … provisions of this section shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power.
There can be few examples in legislation of a Government seeking total power in such a way.
The Government have presented the new clause as a concession. The fact that the affirmative resolution procedure is to be used is something of a concession, but we are greatly worried and, about a fortnight ago, I took up with the Leader of the House in an oral question the way in which an unelected state is developing. The Government are elected once every five years and this Government happened to persuade the majority of people in England —only in England—that they are popular on a specific day, but then things changed.
There was a test of public opinion in Wales at the weekend. The Conservative party is for a little while the second party in Wales while the Labour party has 60 per cent. of the support. That is an extraordinary position. The rest of the support is scattered among the other four main parties. A similar situation exists in Scotland where the Government are at their lowest ebb but still have the barefaced cheek to introduce legislation that damages all the people, including those in Scotland and Wales who have not elected them.
Dyw hi ddim yn bosib i mi siarad fy iaith fy hun yn y senedd dyna un o'r problemau sydd gennyf yn y Tg—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me and let me know what that means.

Mr. Flynn: I was pointing out, Madam Speaker, that it is not possible for me to speak in both the languages of Wales in this House in spite of the fact that this is the only Parliament that Wales has at the moment. We have just celebrated St. David's day, but the debate on Welsh affairs was held on St. Winwaloe's day—we could not have even that small concession.
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I can say that anger about the elective dictatorship that is running Wales is growing by the day. There was a magnificent rally at the weekend in which the people of Wales—people of many parties—spoke with one voice to demand our own Parliament. The reason why they did so is specifically Bills such as this. We have a Government we did not elect but who rule us by quango. We have a Secretary of State who is an alien in Welsh society.
The only justification for the clause and for the Bill that the Government have offered is that some people are receiving invalidity benefit although they are not genuinely incapable of work. We know the reasons for that belief and for the present situation. Just before the general election in 1987, all of us noticed that there was a sudden relaxation of the rules that are generally applied to the availability of invalidity benefit. It appeared that larger numbers of people were receiving it.
That was for reasons not unconnected with the general election, which was fast approaching. There was desperation among Conservatives that they would be rejected because of the enormous unemployment and it


was far better for them to turn a blind eye to the growing numbers of people on invalidity benefit than have them classified as unemployed. The unemployment figures were already mushrooming out of control, so that there were 30 fiddles of the unemployment statistics and almost as many of the employment statistics.
One of the main industries in my constituency produces Government figures in the Central Statistical Office. The work of those people is important. Their only function in life is to produce statistics that are objective and are of value and they feel great resentment when they see the results of their professional work being prostituted by the Government and presented in a wholly dishonest way. The figures are presented in such a way that they are not meant to provide information on which the Government and others can make decisions but which can only serve the interests of the majority party.
Even with all the groups that are taken off the unemployment register to keep down those figures, we still have the nonsense of the employment figures. People are counted several times. If someone is working as a part-time cleaner in the House—the number is about to be reduced from 89 to 56—has another job in the afternoon, such as the many who work at St. Thomas's, and has a job at the weekend, that person is counted three times. She is three people according to the employment figures. We know that 750,000 people are counted twice in the employment figures. The position is entirely misleading and wildly inaccurate.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, by the same token, there are a number of people who are working but who are still on the unemployment register?

Mr. Flynn: I am sure that that occurs. Of course there is abuse in any system, but the Government have had 15 years in which to put the system right. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that figure is as high as 750,000, he is entirely wrong. There is a black economy, which is fuelled at the moment by the Government's stupidity—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) led the hon. Gentleman down the wrong path with his question. I am sure that we can return to the Government new clause.

Mr. Flynn: I am sorry that I was diverted by the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman—and not for the first time. I shall not stray again.
The other reason for the increase in the potential number of people on incapacity benefit was the large number of people who were at retirement and who decided to continue on invalidity benefit, rather than claim the state pension, because of the advantage that it was not taxable. The Government have turned their back on that for a long time.
It is hard to understand how that situation justifies a Bill in which the Government are trying to take away the entitlement to benefit from people who are incapable of work. The Bill does that in a number of ways. It extends from six to 12 months the period for which short-term benefit is paid, resulting in a massive loss of income during the second six months. It abolishes the earnings-related

additional benefit for which people paid contributions between 1978 and 1991, and it introduces new tests of incapacity which will deny benefit to people who, in some cases, have rightly been treated as incapable of work for many years.
The new clause shows us what is happening in the Government's mind—if "mind" is not too large and all-embracing a word for the irrational ideological trash that comes from them. The Government are a group of ideologues introducing a series of what could be regarded as Treasury support measures—measures that have nothing whatever to do with social security.
The Child Support Agency has rightly been dubbed the Treasury support agency. It is ill thought out and has caused enormous damage. People have even lost their lives, as suicides have been attributed to the nonsense and excesses of the legislation. In a parliamentary answer I was told that 90 per cent. of the money that the agency will receive is likely to end up in the Treasury, not with custodial parents.
I do not wish to detain the House too long on the new clause, but it is indicative of the spirit of the whole Bill, and of a Government who wish to get out of a financial hole that they have dug for themselves, and who are doing so at the expense of the weakest in society.

Mr. Pike: I shall make a few brief comments, one of which arises from my earlier intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) rightly referred to the problem of fast tracking. We have reached Report, yet we are still not really sure whether the Government will deliver because, as so often happens, we are debating a Bill that does not include the regulations that will go with it.
We are being asked to take in good faith something that was said in Committee, so I hope that the Minister will be able to say positively that the Government recognise that there is still a problem regarding fast tracking and still the need to expedite the resolution of any benefit entitlement that people who are terminally ill may have. I hope that the Minister will spell out clearly the fact that although there is no solution in the provisions before us today, one will be included in the regulations.
With regard to the new clause, the tests and the transitional arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, and as we all know, the principal objective of the Bill is to save money and to reduce the number of people eligible for invalidity benefit. Even the Government have not tried to hide that fact. We all know that decisions on invalidity benefit involve deciding whether people are capable of performing their own work and if not, whether they are incapable of all work or only of certain types of work. That causes tremendous difficulty for people who have specific jobs in which they may have worked for a long time, but who have become incapable of performing that work.
A skilled engineer came to my advice bureau on Saturday. His hand had been seriously injured at work and he was no longer able to perform the work of a skilled engineer, so he has been on invalidity benefit. First, he had been found to be capable of work, although incapable of working in his own job, but then his case went for review and he has now been told that he is capable of any work. We think that the provisions for the new tests will involve that type of move regarding present entitlement to invalidity benefit.
The Minister was trying to make it look as though the Government would protect people by saying that if there were any mistakes that could not be dealt with, the transitional arrangements would mean that they could be altered within three years by regulation and statutory instrument, as specified in the new clause. The Minister made it sound as though the Government would try to do that in the interests of the public at large, but my hon. Friend the Member for Withington was nearer the mark.
He fears, as I do, that the transitional arrangements are the Government's attempt not to improve the situation but to tie it up because they may not have yet cut out everything that they want to cut out. Therefore, they are giving themselves draconian powers within the transitional arrangements further to turn the screws during the next three years with minimal debate, thereby saving more money for the Treasury and disqualifying more people.

Mr. Burt: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pike: I see that the Under-Secretary is shaking his head. I hope that he will also say that my comments are totally unjustified. If that is what he says, I hope that when he comes to an election in two or three years' time, he is able to stand up and say that I was wrong and he was right. I fear that I will be right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Withington and I will be able to tell the Government that we were right to fear what they were doing. The Government have tightened the screws and screwed more people out of their ability to get this new benefit.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) opened with a breathtaking argument. We freely gave a concession in Committee by changing the regulations from negative to affirmative—a change that he welcomed at the time—but he then returned to his attack on the regulations altogether. I simply want him to know that I found it breathtaking.

Mr. Bradley: Can I clarify the position? We welcomed the concession that they should be affirmative, not negative, regulations. We certainly did not welcome the fact that the Government are introducing even more regulations that need affirmative resolution.

Mr. Burt: That was an argument that we had consistently throughout the Committee, and I should reiterate the point that I made then. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was right in the first part of his remarks, which he directed at the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that we are putting the regulations through to give us the flexibility that we need to deal with such a complex matter, recognising that we might not include everything for the sake of people covered by the first set of regulations. We are giving ourselves that room and flexibility.
There has been an argument about whether we overuse that power. We do not believe that we overuse it—that is the reason why we are doing it this way. The hon. Member for Burnley was right to ask what I would be saying in three years' time. At that time, I firmly believed that I should be able to reiterate the assurance that I am giving today. I hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Withington about the regulations will be satisfied by that time.
We spent a total of 34 hours in Committee, with 13

sittings. We had some good scrutiny there. We do not believe that we have sought additional power. As I said, the arrangements are to give effect to the agreement to make the regulations affirmative for three years. Transitional arrangements are usually dealt with in regulations for the ease of the House and to give us flexibility.
The hon. Member for Newport, West made an interesting contribution. He raised a number of matters relating to Second Reading and Third Reading but touched marginally on the amendment before us now. As always, I enjoyed his contribution. I am only sorry that I did not understand all the Welsh—I wish that I had.
The hon. Members for Withington and for Burnley both made a substantial point about linking rules and treatment of the terminally ill. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to consider a number of specific issues such as those. He warned the Committee that some of the issues were complex and would take time to explore. Hon. Members may be disappointed but that consideration is not yet complete. I can, however, reiterate my right hon. Friend's commitment to continue to give

Mr. Bradley: May I clarify the range of the Government's thinking on this point? In Committee, we talked about the terminally ill, people with prescribed conditions and people on the higher rate of component for DLA. Can the Minister give an assurance that each of those areas is being addressed and not only the terminally ill, although clearly they are crucial within that grouping?

Mr. Burt: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I also remind the House that, should amendments to the Bill be required, there will be a suitable opportunity to move them during the debate in another place. This House would then have the opportunity to examine the issues again at consideration.
I hope that I have been helpful in answer to the short debate on the new clause, which I hope will now be able to form part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT: MEDICAL TEST

'The Secretary of State shall, before 30th September 1996, lay before each House of Parliament a report on the operation of the test of incapacity for work under Part XIIA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which shall (among such other information as he may think fit) include—

(a) an account of the number of people who attended a medical examination under that part of that Act and a description of the type of such examination;
(b) an account of the number of people who, having attended such an examination were determined as incapable of work;
(c) an account of the number of people who having attended such an examination were determined as capable of work;
(d) an account of the reasons for determinations of capacity for work;
(e) an assessment of the medical test by such persons whom the Secretary of State may choose'.—[Mr. Bradley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bradley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 4—Annual Report by Secretary of State: appeals—


'The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April each year after the commencement of this Act, lay before Parliament a report concerning appeals against determinations that a person is capable of work, which shall, among such other matters as he may think fit, for each area of the Benefits Agency Medical Service—

(a) specify the number of occasions on which an appeal was heard more than ten days after it was made, and the average time between the making and the hearing of the appeal;
(b) summarise the outcome of all appeals;
(c) report on the extent to which medical or other evidence influencing the outcome of an appeal;
(d) summarise the reasons for any failure by a claimant to attend a hearing; and
(e) report on the use made by claimants of representations at an appeal.'.—

Amendment No. 22, in clause 5, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
'(c) defining the way in which relevant evidence or information submitted by that person or by any medical practitioner or professional health worker will be used during the assessment'.

Amendment No. 24, in clause 6, page 13, line 17, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—
'(4) When a social security tribunal is to determine an appeal concerning a determination that a claimant was capable of work the tribunal shall sit with the claimants' general practitioner,'.

Amendment No. 25, in page 13, leave out lines 18 to 26 and insert—
'for appeals against determinations that a person is capable of work to be heard by a tribunal constituted under section 42 of this Act.'.

Amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
'(5) When a claimant has made an appeal to a social security tribunal concerning a determination that he was capable of work—

(a) the tribunal shall hear the appeal within ten working days of the appeal being made; and
(b) the claimant may be accompanied at the hearing by any person whom he nominates.'.

Mr. Bradley: This substantial group of amendments goes right to the heart of the Labour party's opposition to the Bill, and it shows why we have consistently and rigorously opposed the Bill on Second Reading and throughout Committee, and why we will continue to do so.
The clear purpose of the legislation is that the Department of Social Security must make its contribution to the cuts in public expenditure because of the Government's economic mismanagement. The £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement overspend is being addressed by the Government, and the Department of Social Security has looked at the people in the greatest need to try to make its contribution. It is clear that the legislation is Treasury-led, and its purpose is to make substantial cuts in the amount of money available to disabled people.
By the Government's own admission, they expect to save £550 million in 1995–1996 and a staggering £1,450 million in the following year. There can be no greater testimony to the fact that this is about saving money, rather than about a rational and careful replanning of benefits to meet the real needs of disabled people. Those benefits must be made in conjunction with a co-ordinated and coherent policy by the Government to try to enable people with disabilities who are able to return to work to do so. Those who cannot return to work should receive an adequate and proper level of income to meet their needs and those of their family.
We have made much this afternoon of the fact that the Government are introducing this measure by regulation, rather than by primary legislation. The purpose of new clause 3 is to enable there to be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the medical test, which is a vital element of the new legislation. It is a disgrace that the medical test on which all of the decisions are to be made about whether a person is eligible for the new benefit is not before the House as we debate the legislation. The test does not form part of the Bill, and it will be brought forward at a later stage by regulation.
It is a great abuse of Parliament that the Opposition are not able to examine properly today the details of the medical test, and that we must wait several months before that test is available for scrutiny through regulation. When it is brought forward, there will be no opportunity for the Opposition to amend the test, and we must accept it or reject it on regulation. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the crucial matter of determining whether a person with disabilities is able to work.
The purpose of new clause 3 is to force the Government to produce a report to Parliament about the way in which the medical test will operate in practice. That report is crucial to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny and understanding of the way in which the medical test will operate.
The report is also crucial because of our general views, which we explored in detail in Committee, on how the Government are developing the medical test. The process is a consultation sham. It is outrageous that a Bill entitled the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill does not contain a definition of incapacity for work.
The medical test is intended to exclude people rather than make them eligible for incapacity benefit. A test of incapacity based on functional limitations alone is inadequate, unfair and unworkable, and the way in which it will be used for new claimants, compared with people in receipt of invalidity benefit, will be inequitable.
If one wants to determine how the test will work in practice, the type of work that someone can reasonably be expected to do must be included in the Bill, but it contains no definition of the work that will apply to the test.
Our first major criticism, and the reason why a report to Parliament on medical tests is so vital, is that the way in which the test is being developed has no validity. We welcomed the explanation that medical officers from the Department of Social Security gave about how the test has been developed, but that explanation did not comfort us that the outcome of the final deliberations will be a test that has any relevance to determining whether people are able to work.
As we have stated before, it is to say the least very unsatisfactory that the so-called panel of experts who will draw up the medical test have to remain secret from the public, and that their deliberations will take place behind closed doors. It is also unsatisfactory that the Government are not prepared to release the names of the people who are devising the test on behalf of disabled people until after the process has been completed.
A crucial element of new clause 3 is that, when a report is prepared after the medical assessments have been scrutinised, it will be passed to the group of experts for their views. It is important that they should continue to have a role once they have gone public and that they should have some voice in the way in which the test operates.
We are concerned about the fact that it is not clear how the final test will be validated by the group of experts. In Committee, we sought clarification of whether the test will be based on a consensus model, the Government will take views on the test and impose their final solution on the group of experts—regardless of whether they agree—or there will be room for public dissent. We would welcome an explanation from the Government.
I am sure that all my hon. Friends, and Conservative Members, will have received briefing after briefing. I have here a sample of those that I have received from organisations throughout the country. Those organisations carefully analysed the consultation document that the Government published, and the briefings explain why they are so critical of the Government's attempt to introduce a purely functional test that can be applied to the world of work for people with disabilities.
Those bodies also assert very strongly that they have been asked to take part in consultations on a document that changed almost before the ink on the first draft was dry. The whole exercise is such a mutant creature, such a changing phenomenon, that it is not clear at what point the final word will be said.
We welcome the Government's undertaking in Committee that, following completion in August of the final deliberations on the medical test, the form of the new test will be published, and that further public consultation on the outcome of the deliberations will be allowed. I hope that, in the context of this new clause, the Government will be able to assure us that they do indeed intend to engage in that process. There must be new and full consultation when the new medical test has finally been devised.
4.30 pm
We are greatly concerned at the fact that, in the absence of a definition in the Bill, it is difficult— almost impossible — to debate incapacity for work. On this ground also, the new clause is important. We are told that a full definition will be provided in regulations. Without knowing how the Government intend to use the medical test in practice, it is very difficult to look forward to a clear understanding of the relationship between the medical test and the work situation. The Bill itself should contain a proper definition so that we might have an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
Given the consultation document's criticism that case law has
broadened and blurred incapacity beyond its original meaning",
and given that part of the thrust of the Government's argument seems to be that they need to tighten up the way in which invalidity benefit is currently administered, it is surprising that a precise definition has not been provided.
A clear definition in statute law might have gone some way towards resolving any supposed problems of misinterpretation of the original intention. If the Government had addressed their mind to that point, all the other proposed changes in the administration of invalidity benefit might have fallen away, and it might have been seen as inappropriate to introduce this new benefit. This can only give additional thrust to the theory that the main purpose of the Bill is to cut public expenditure rather than to focus benefit effectively on people with disabilities.
There is little evidence that the only way properly to target—that is the Government's terminology; they used the word "focus" in Committee; we believe that the proper word is "cut"—invalidity benefit is to set about this

elaborate new procedure. We believe very strongly—no one has suggested otherwise at any stage of debate on the Bill—that not every person in receipt of invalidity benefit is a genuine case.
It would be absurd to make such a suggestion. However, the dismantling of the whole system and the introduction of entirely new procedures—in particular, the new functional medical test—does not support the Government's contention that they are trying to help disabled people rather than to take essential benefits from them.
If the Government's purpose is genuinely to focus invalidity benefit, why will people who pass the medical test receive benefit at a lower rate? If the purpose is simply to tighten up the rules and ensure that the medical test is properly applied, why will there be a cut in the amount of money available to people with disabilities who pass the test?
This is a crucial question, which the Government must answer. They must tell the public why, if they are simply trying—in their terms—to wean people off invalidity benefit, those who pass will receive benefit at a lower rate.
So new clause 3 is intended to bring a report forward on the medical test, because we believe that the test of functional limitation is inadequate, unfair and unworkable. As a tool for assessing incapacity, the test is inadequate. The Government have based their research on the previous Office of Population Censuses and Surveys scales, which were defined very much for research purposes and not for the purpose to which they are now being applied. We believe strongly that other factors, and not just functional limitation, must be taken into account when using the medical test.
Not only must we look at the individual's medical condition and disability; we must also assess the effect of their condition on their ability to carry out a range of social and functional activities, including the ability to travel to work, and their capacity to sustain functional and social activities within the specific demands and constraints of the workplace. A study undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute suggests that four criteria are important in the assessment of work capacity—age, skills, the accessibility of the job and discrimination by employers—and that a much wider test than the purely functional one proposed by the Government must be applied.
The test, we believe, will produce unfair results. We were encouraged to a certain extent by the fact that now included in the medical test will be open-ended questions for applicants to answer, to explain some of the limitations imposed by their incapacity. But, by their very nature, open-ended questionnaires are difficult to analyse, and it will be hard to produce consistency of treatment as between claimants.
As anyone who has undertaken social research knows, the interpretation of open-ended questions and their answers is extremely difficult. So there will be great differences in treatment, not only within Department of Social Security offices dealing with these matters, but between offices throughout the country. That is the importance of the new clause—that a report will be presented to Parliament so that we can look at the analysis to ensure fairness and equality of treatment throughout the country.
We are also concerned that any functional medical test will fail to take into proper account what has been mentioned in many of the briefings that we have received


on this from organisations such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Arthritis Care and others: fluctuating conditions whereby people's ability to work varies from day to day, or even situations in which, as a result of undertaking some task at work on a particular day, they may be prevented from doing it the following day. We are also concerned that the functional test arrangement will not properly reflect the condition of people suffering from long-term debilitating illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis.
We are concerned about people whose disabilities are invisible, particularly those with chronic pain, who often experience difficulty in convincing others that their pain is real. There is a great deal of research on this point, and the sensitivity with which the medical test is applied will be crucial in ensuring that people who genuinely can or cannot work are properly and uniformly assessed. We have no confidence, from the way the test is currently being organised, that it will lead to that conclusion.
Finally, we are concerned about people who have "managed" their disability through the use of medication and so on, but who have great difficulty in undertaking tasks to which the test may be applied. There are difficulties not only in the way in which the medical test will be applied to people's current occupation, but in the way in which it will be applied to all work.
We are very worried that the all-work test will not reflect the relationship between the ability of the individual, through the functional medical test, and the real work opportunities for disabled people. We are worried that that will not be applied in a way that will lead them into real employment because, by the Government's admission, they expect 200,000 people who would currently claim invalidity benefit not to receive the new incapacity benefit, but to end up as unemployed.
That is the reverse of the Government's previous policy, by which they sought to reduce unemployment by pushing people into any benefit they could find that was not unemployment benefit. Invalidity benefit was one such benefit that the Department of Social Security found, but it now wants to reverse that trend and to force people on to the dole queue rather than giving them a proper level of benefit.
The other part of the group of amendments which is crucial aims to link the medical test to the appeals procedure. In Committee, we had some debate about the appeal procedure, but by our proposed new clause 4 we are strengthening the deliberation and looking towards the Government to give further comment and consideration to the way in which the appeals procedure will work in practice.
The mechanism which we are employing is the presentation of an annual report to Parliament so that we can give proper scrutiny to the way in which the appeals procedure operates. Linked to that appeals procedure is the role of the general practitioner and of medical and other professional advisers in the appeals procedure.
There were some welcome comments in Committee about the way in which the appeals procedure would work. We welcome the points, for example, that appeals could be made to a social security appeal tribunal unless otherwise specified, that the GP will continue to have a role, and that a decision of "fit to work" reached by the Benefits Agency medical service will be accepted by the Employment Service, so that people will not fail tests by both agencies

and fail to qualify for any benefit. Those points were welcome, but we need much greater clarification of the way in which the appeal procedure will operate.
I know that the Minister said in Committee that further thought and discussion about the appeals procedure were continuing, but it is clear that we need to flag up some of our anxieties even more firmly.
One issue which was mentioned to us since we debated the Bill in Committee and which is important to many organisations representing disabled people, is the current delays in the hearing of appeals—the time that it is taking for decisions to be made. As a result of what we believe to be the more stringent nature of the new medical test—I emphasise that we cannot say for certain the way in which it will operate, because it is not before us to debate—and the arbitrary way in which we believe that it may be applied, not only to current work patterns but to all work employment, it is essential that the Government provide some certainty about the length of time that they would expect the appeals to take.
There will be a growing number of appeals. We must ensure that the Government will commit the resources to ensure that the appeals procedure is effective, and that the time scale in which claimants can expect a decision to be made is satisfactory. It must be especially satisfactory because of the structure of the new benefit. There is a change in rates at 28 weeks. Up to 28 weeks, a lower rate of benefit will be paid than after 28 weeks. Claimants will not qualify for the full rate of benefit until after 52 weeks. Therefore, we must be especially sure that the appeals procedure does not flow over that timespan, and that people do not lose on changing rates of benefit in that time.
Therefore, we very much welcome some consideration and further comment by the Government about the way in which the procedure will work, what resources will be provided and what the cost of those resources will be to the Government, to ensure that a satisfactory procedure is put into place.
4.45 pm
What is crucial, as a result of the much more limited nature of the medical test, is the way in which the reports of medical officers, general practitioners and other medical professionals will be dealt with at the appeals stage. The Government are setting about a system which limits the role of the GP at the initial point of assessment. GPs will be allowed to produce their medical evidence on the condition of the claimant, but will not be allowed to give an assessment about the way in which that condition relates to the claimant's ability to work—or, if the GP chooses to do so, I suspect that that information will be ignored.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have a constituent who received support from his general practitioner, who was told by the Department's doctor that he was perfectly fit to work and then had three subsequent different examinations by different doctors, all of whom said that he was incapable of working.
This morning, I received a letter—not from Monsieur Bichard, but from the personnel director of the agency, which I thought was a new development—which said cheerfully, "Yes; it is perfectly true that it did take 18 months. He has now got all the money back, and how inconvenient." There was not even a word of apology. Does my hon. Friend think that there will be a great deal more of that in future?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the way in which the appeals procedure currently operates. Interestingly, evidence from agencies such as citizens advice bureaux up and down the country shows that, when a case has gone to appeal, ultimately the evidence that was given by the GP is upheld at appeal. I therefore suspect that we shall get into more and far more elaborate appeals, which will take an enormous amount of time, effort and cost, and which will fall back very much on the original assessment that may have been undertaken by the GP.
No one suggests that the current situation is perfect; no one suggests that all GPs are happy with the current arrangements; but there is a strong feeling that, if GPs were given far greater guidance, better training and help in preparing the reports for the Department of Social Security, far fewer people might have had to go to appeal and then fall back on the GPs having to draw up new reports—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Or if they did not know anything about medicine, that would help, too.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
We seek greater clarification of the role that GPs and other medical officers and assessments will play, and of the stage at which they will participate. It is feared that this will give rise to a massive number of discontented claimants who feel that they have been harshly treated by the medical test or its harsh interpretation.
The test has limitations because of its functional elements in relating the multitude of different conditions, illnesses and disabilities that people have. It is difficult to fix those into a set of procedures and to make a one-off determination about whether people are capable or incapable of work. I believe that it will cause great distress and anxiety.
I feel that the Government have not understood the threshold that they are trying to determine between capacity and incapacity for work. We are worried—because we have evidence of it throughout the changes that have been made to the social security system—that the guiding force in all the decisions will be the Treasury. Under the social fund, for example, people with exactly the same needs and circumstances are treated totally differently, depending on what time of the year they walk through the door.
Although the Government will deny it, there is a fear that, if the medical test, however it is devised, does not limit the number of claimants to the amount of money which the Government expect the benefit to cost—even if the amount is not set in concrete—they will immediately change the threshold and the weighting of factors within the test to limit even further the opportunity for disabled people to be eligible for the new incapacity benefit.
As all Government policy at the current time seems to be governed by that overriding Treasury figure, which is designed to force down public sector borrowing, but which causes those with greatest need to suffer as a result, that must cloud our judgment on all the Government's decisions.
It is important that the new clause should enable proper scrutiny by Parliament of matters that are not contained in the Bill. It is crucial that Parliament be given an

opportunity to look in detail at how the medical test will operate in practice, and at those who have been granted or denied the new incapacity benefit.
We need a report that gives a proper analysis, nationwide and region by region, of how the benefit operates in practice. We also need a proper analysis of how the appeals procedure will work in practice. We need evidence and research on how medical reports, GP assessments and the reports of other medical officers and professionals in the medical field are dealt with, to ensure consistency of treatment by claimants throughout the country.
We also need to ensure that, throughout the whole process, money is not the guiding principle in determining the Government's response to people's genuine claims for incapacity benefit. People must feel confident that Parliament can come to a considered, reasoned and certain decision because the evidence is before us. The evidence is certainly not before us this afternoon.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I hope that the Government will look carefully at the proposals in new clause 3 and the group of amendments. There is a case for having a report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the medical test and I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be willing to reflect on it and consider it positively. I know that they are looking to develop a system that will work humanely and practically.
The Government have offered us the concept of an objective medical test that contains considerable difficulties. At this stage of legislating, we do not know what the series of objective medical tests will be. We are grateful for the consultative document offered to us, but that itself has been changing, even during the consultation process. It is excellent that no less than 80 experts have been called in from outside the Department to offer their opinions and advice. But I suspect that, even if there were 800 experts, they would still face insurmountable difficulty in developing a satisfactory objective medical test.
Having said that, I welcome the developments which it is reported are taking place, even at this stage, although, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) suggested, the introduction of additional flexibility may take the test a little further away from objectivity.
We are contemplating a test not of incapacity for work but of functional incapacity. The purpose of the exercise is to establish objective and universal measures in a series of scores in tests. Will my right hon. Friend persuade me that that is not an impossibility? In assessing capacity or incapacity to work, one must consider the interaction in individual cases of a range of factors. One must consider the impairment or illness, which may be a fluctuating condition, in relation to the work experience and skills of the individual in question; his or her education and training; his or her personal household circumstances; and the work opportunities that may be available to that person.
The distinction must not be forgotten between "own work" and "all work"—the distinction between the work which the person in question has previously undertaken —and whether the person would be fit for that work or similar work and any other work of which that person may or may not be capable. If we ignore that distinction we shall inevitably get ourselves into considerable difficulties.
The Department's research makes us well aware of the difficulties that face people over the age of 50 in trying to


find jobs, and we are all too aware of the reality of discrimination against disabled people in relation to employment, an issue which we shall have a fuller opportunity to debate on Friday.
I remind the House that the Department of Employment's sponsored research in 1990 found that 6 per cent. of employers candidly and brutally said that they would discriminate against disabled people. Another 25 per cent. of employers admitted that they might discriminate. A Spastics Society study found that 34 out of 94 employers, willing to interview, were not willing to interview a registered disabled applicant with qualifications and experience equal to other applicants. It also found that 53 per cent. of employers use pre-employment health screening. That study by the Spastics Society, entitled "Wasted Opportunities", on the activities of training and enterprise councils in relation to training disabled people, also offers a gloomy account.
The disabled are three times more likely to be out of work and they are unemployed for longer than non-disabled people. At the beginning of this month, the citizens advice bureaux produced a gloomy dossier detailing instances of discrimination against disabled people.
Against that background, it is difficult—indeed, impossible—to talk in terms of an objective medical test that would define a person's incapacity for work, because incapacity for work in the real world depends on the circumstances in which someone finds himself or herself and those circumstances may be adverse. So incapacity is not an absolute; it is a relative matter.
Furthermore, we should think positively in terms of ability rather than disability and of capacity rather than incapacity. The title of the Bill, "Social Security (Incapacity for Work)", is somewhat chilling. Although I realise that it is not intended, I fear that the concept expressed by that title may encourage too negative a spirit when it comes to employing disabled people.
There is a good case for having a report on the lines proposed in the new clause. If we are to have a report, it should look at a range of relevant measures within the overall policy. I hope that, by the time the Bill has completed its passage, the report will cover a partial incapacity benefit. It seems appropriate that we should have not just a single absolute incapacity benefit but a partial incapacity benefit which would be proportionate to the degree of disability of the person being supported.
I hope that an amendment of that kind will be instated in the Bill. I know that new clause 5 was not selected for debate today, but there is no reason why it should not be considered in another place, where I am sure those involved in the debate would want to emphasise the value of gradualism and the rehabilitative experience of moving to part-time work, perhaps en route to full-time work. A partial incapacity benefit would be a useful complement to disability working allowance, under which benefit is cut off at a fairly low level of earnings.
5 pm
Similarly, I hope that a report would cover more generous linking rules, which we do not have an opportunity to debate today, but which I hope will be introduced into the legislation. The trap created by an eight-week rule is a deterrent to employment. I hope that

we might move to a two-year linking rule under incapacity benefit parallel to the rule under disability working allowance.
The Government's strategy surely must be to get people into work. That is good for them and, of course, for the Government's finances, about which the Government are legitimately concerned. Rigid rules and rigid cut-offs are not conducive to that end and will, unquestionably, be insensitive to the variety of circumstances and needs. The formula used by the Benefits Agency medical service must, at the very least, be made flexible.
I welcome the announcement by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the terminally ill, those on the higher rate care component of disability living allowance, and those on the prescribed list will not be required to undertake the test. I also think that people who are made exempt in that way should be fast tracked on to benefit, but that is a debate for another occasion. We are unable to debate amendments Nos. 17 and 18 because they were not selected. They too may be the subject of a debate in another place.
As has already been argued, the report should cover the involvement of general practitioners. I cannot bring myself to believe that it is right to suggest that doctors consider that it is beyond the range of their normal responsibilities to play a part in the first assessment. I know that they are to offer an opinion on a rather curtailed basis in the first assessment, but because of some of the factors that I mentioned earlier, and because the personal history and circumstances of each individual should be considered, we should find ways to involve general practitioners as much as possible in the process. I know that many general practitioners would welcome such involvement and recognise it as a normal and proper part of their professional responsibilities.
We need to know what role general practitioners will play in appeals. My right hon. and hon. Friends have said that GPs will have a role in the appeal process, but it has not yet been made clear what that role should be. A report should cover that aspect of the procedures.
The report should tell us a good deal about what is happening in appeals. In recent years, the success rate of appeals involving invalidity benefit has risen. I believe that the figure was 21 per cent. in 1979, and 53 per cent. in 1992. A consistent weight of anecdotal evidence on appeals shows that the success rate of appeals has risen yet further since then. I suspect that the search for economies and the administrative guidance prompting benefits officers to be more stringent has perversely led to higher administration costs. In their unsuccessful attempts to weed out a considerable number of "unjustified" claims, they have incurred administrative costs. That has caused difficulties for everyone, both officials and claimants.
The appeal process has lengthened from 21 weeks in 1986 to 30 weeks in 1992. We should also be concerned that it is possible for a claimant not to receive income during those lengthening periods while they wait for the outcome of an appeal. It would be helpful and proper if the report dealt with that matter as well.
The purpose of the legislation is, very properly, to ensure that there is no waste in, or abuse of, this part of the benefit system. It also aims to ensure that appropriate support is provided to claimants who are entitled to it, and that such support is provided reliably and quickly. The objective of the legislation should be humanity, not


parsimony. It is a part of the benefit system through which we acquit ourselves, in part, of our responsibilities to those who are vulnerable and poor.
There is a good case for having a report laid before Parliament, as the new clause proposes. We are, after all, embarking on an experimental approach that has not yet been fully formulated. For the reasons that I have explained, we cannot yet be confident that it will work. The Benefits Agency medical service will face a massive task. It is estimated that perhaps 600,000 people who currently receive invalidity benefit may have to undergo the test. We will need assurance, therefore, that the procedures and the quality of decision-making are of the necessary standard.
To have a report would be fair to everyone who is sick and disabled, especially those who are rejected at the medical test. They are entitled, as we all are, to see that the system is performing as it should and that proper standards are defined and are being met.
Finally, the Government should consider positively the suggestion to provide such a report as it would be a mark of their respect for Parliament and the public.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: This is an important Bill and therefore an important debate. The number of people currently receiving invalidity benefit is substantial. The Government estimate that 1.5 million people will receive benefit either now or in about a year, so we are discussing substantial amounts of public resources. More importantly, we are discussing the way in which our society, through the will of Parliament, will treat people with disabilities. For reasons that I think are clear, not least sheer demography, there are likely to be more people with disabilities in our community as we approach the end of this century and a new millennium. The debate is of great importance to social policy.
As hon. Members have said, much depends on the medical test and how we define incapacity for work. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I agreed with him when he said that incapacity was not an absolute concept but was, inevitably, a relative concept. I want to develop that argument to say that incapacity is relative to the employment position.
The Government's legislation is based on an assumption which, in the current employment climate, many of us would regard as heroic. It assumes that those who fail the strict medical test will, by definition, be capable of work. I assume that the assumption is that with a bit of willingness those people will not only seek, but find, jobs.
Will Ministers say more today than they have done so far, and more than they said in Committee, about how they view the association between medical capacity for work and the true prospects for gaining work? I hope that Ministers will respond and consider policy in those broad terms. Parliament today could not agree to the measure with any great confidence if it felt that the result would be that many people with disabilities which were not serious enough to pass the test would be consigned to poverty because they would be unable to find their way into the employment market. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. A strict medical test, regardless of the employment situation, must make for poor social policy.
I will put forward two employment scenarios relating to the medical test. One would be where the medical test was

being applied in full and buoyant employment, where not only were the official unemployment levels very low, but there was a shortage in the labour market and employers were crying out for decent labour. In those circumstances, employers would be bending over backwards to accommodate people with disabilities. They would be heavily into training, they would be adapting their premises and they would in a variety of ways be sensitive to the needs of those with disabilities.
We all know that to assume that people with disabilities—even serious disabilities—are not capable of work represents great prejudice and potential discrimination against such people. There are remarkable people around—we have all had them as colleagues in different walks of life—who, despite many disabilities, are making a major contribution to their workplace and therefore to the economy.
Professor Stephen Hawking labours under the most considerable disabilities imaginable, yet he is one of the most brilliant scientists in the west and has made a major contribution not only to his university, but to the enlightenment of us all. To assume that someone with even such grave disabilities was incapable of work would be a great slur on that man and many others less famous. In the right employment conditions, many people with the most grave disabilities are capable of work and, equally important, should be able to obtain work. In the right circumstances, we might have more confidence about even a strict medical test.
Sadly, the employment scenario that I have outlined is very far from the reality in the United Kingdom. Instead, for many the reality is not employment, but unemployment; there are 3 million or 4 million people out of work, the trends in the labour market are towards less security and permanence and people have to chop and change their jobs.
Increasingly, Ministers and other pundits make a virtue out of that. They say that those are the circumstances that workers will have to face in future; they will have to retrain constantly and no job is for life—even for those with safe seats in the House—and that people should not expect such security. In those changed employment circumstances, it will become more difficult for people with disabilities to find employment. I wonder how the Government would present their Bill to us in that context, which they will need to address.
The evidence so far, without taking account of developments in the most recent years, is worrying for the employment prospects of those with disabilities. In 1989, Social and Community Planning Research estimated that 22 per cent. of people with disabilities who regarded themselves available for work—the so-called economically active as the statisticians would have it—were out of work. If the Government have data for a more recent period, they would be useful, because I suspect that things have changed for the worse, even since 1989.
Another report in 1992, from Stephen Smith of the Spastics Society, found that employers were six times more likely to turn down people with disabilities for interviews even where their qualifications, experience and CVs were just as good as those who were not disabled. We face a problem of discrimination from employers; it is well known to the House and well documented. Other Government studies have estimated that it is 2.5 times more likely for people with disabilities to be out of work than those who are able-bodied.
A survey organised by the voluntary organisation, PACT in Brighton, also relates to the debate. It found that 40 per cent. of employers in Brighton regarded people with disabilities as unsuitable for employment. That is another example of the prejudice and discrimination that we face in Britain.
5.15 pm
Perhaps the most telling to the House is that many years ago, shortly after the second world war, the House in its wisdom passed a Bill saying that larger employers—those with 20 or more workers—should have a disability quota of 3 per cent. of their labour force. We understand that, despite having had many years to implement that measure, three quarters of employers do not meet the quota. Since 1975 there has been no prosecution to enforce it. That suggests that, although we may willingly pass legislation in the House, we are rather lax in its implementation.
Still on the theme of the association between the medical test and the reality of finding work, I was struck by a briefing that many of us received from the Policy Studies Institute written by one of their senior social scientists, Richard Berthoud, about the reality behind the medical test. He talked in particular about discrimination by employers. I quoted from it in Committee and I shall quote a paragraph today, as it makes an important point. It states:
At a meeting of the 'panel of experts' convened by the DSS to discuss the medical assessment, a disease was described which caused people to tremble permanently and uncontrollably. People with this disease are not impaired in any way: they could stand, walk, sit, grip, reach and do all the other things required by the medical test. But other people, it was said, could not bear to watch them—they became upset and could not concentrate on their own tasks. As a result of the effect on other employees, no employer was prepared to hire someone with this condition.
The reaction of the panel would be the reaction of many of us in the House—we would be appalled. Many suggested that it was outrageous and that employers should be made to hire those people. But in reality, sadly, many employers will not hire such people because of their effect on other employees.
The document went on to say that most people would agree that employers and employees should not discriminate in that way and that perhaps they should be banned from doing so. However, as long as discrimination persists, removal of trembling and other socially embarrassing conditions such as disfigurement from the assessment criteria would mean that those affected would be denied incapacity benefits and face the punitive treatment offered to the unemployed. Here we have the real and complex association between the danger of failing a medical test, because, objectively, the person can work, and the reality whereby the prejudices of many ordinary people and employees and the prejudices and discriminations of employers mean the person cannot find work.
Again I put it to Ministers: what are the employment prospects of those who may fail the medical test? Do the Government think, even at this stage, that it is wise to bring to the Chamber legislation which, however scientifically well constructed—and we do not know that, because we do not have the details—nevertheless does not seem to take account of current reality?
I have received correspondence from people who say that in practice, in the labour market today, if they have a disability, particularly if they are no longer very young,

they find it difficult to get work. Someone wrote to me from Kent saying that his local disability employment adviser had written to him and said that he was unlikely to get a job. Why? He was told:
Because of the changes in companies employment policy as a result of the recession, your age, your disabilities, which would preclude you holding down a full or part-time job, and the fact that you have not worked since 1987.
The DEE went on to say:
I am sorry, but you are now unemployable.
I do not know the full details of that case, but that may well be someone who passes the test prescribed by the DSS but fails the most important test of all—the jobs test—and ends up not in employment but in unemployment.
I would like to add to what has been said by hon. Members in Committee and in the House today about those who have conditions that fluctuate from day to day, week to week or month to month and put this important point to Ministers. How will the medical test allow for those who perhaps on the day of the test seem to be relatively able-bodied and therefore capable of work according to the legislation but who perhaps the next day, week or month have a relapse and find that they cannot work? That is of real concern.
I am told by those with ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis—including those who come to see me in any constituency office in Croydon, that on some days, despite suffering for many months, they may feel relatively fit and confident about life and the prospects of work, while on another day they may wake up in the morning and find it almost impossible even to get out of bed, such are the debilitating effects of ME and similar conditions.
The point was mentioned in Committee, but I will put it again to Ministers. How can a test, however sophisticated, allow for such a condition on the day? It appears to be true for those with physical conditions. I suspect, although I am no expert, that it is even more true for those with mental illness, certainly certain forms of mental illness. Again, someone from Croydon came to see me, speaking on behalf of those in the Manic Depressive Fellowship—those who suffer from the terrible condition of manic depression. He told me a similar story—that on one day he may truly be one of the most depressed people in the community and be almost unable to function, certainly not in the labour market and hold down a job.
He used to be a lecturer at a college. After many years —indeed, decades—of battling against his manic depression, he finally had to succumb and leave his place of work and is now dependent on invalidity benefit. He said that on some days he is really down, but because his condition fluctuates from week to week and month to month, at other times he may be almost up in the clouds and almost too active—indeed, hyperactive. It makes him do foolish things. He gives away too much money to his charitable causes. That is a fluctuating condition. How would a strict medical test allow for that?
This is a serious debate. I am not making a polemical point. I am interested in how the Government can devise a test to allow for the reality of people's conditions, because we all know that the prospects of any of us at some stage becoming mentally ill are quite high. We are not talking about small numbers of people, but about a large percentage of men and women. How they will be treated is important.
It would be helpful if the Government could tell us more today about the conditions that will be on the exempt list.
I welcome the assurance given in Committee that, although they are not shown on the face of the Bill—I understand that—people suffering from many other conditions, including those suffering from AIDS and symptomatic HIV, are likely to receive extremely sympathetic treatment from Government when the exempt list is drawn up. If Ministers have a moment today to confirm that assurance, I know that many people would be most grateful.
In my experience, social security, while often presented in terms of policy, grand principle and key objectives, depends crucially on its detail. It is therefore up to the House to take its role as scrutineers of legislation extremely seriously. Again, I offer this not as a polemical point but as a serious contribution to the debate. Having served on the Committee that considered the Incapacity for Work Bill, I have been appalled by the manner in which Conservative Back Benchers treated the Committee in such a cavalier way. I have been on Committees for smaller Bills, but that was my first major experience. I offer, therefore, an innocent essay on what I found. But I was genuinely surprised and appalled by the way in which Conservative Back Benchers approached the Committee.
It is partly a function of the fact that, sadly, the more independent-minded Conservative Back Benchers were on the exempt list and not allowed to serve on the Committee. It was packed, I suppose, with trusties. At one stage—it was a rare moment—a Back Bencher rose to make a contribution and said that he would be very brief. Indeed, he had promised his Whip that he would speak for only four minutes.
Those of us who—at our teacher's feet—studied the British constitution, read textbooks which, I now realise, came from the section called "Fiction". They told us the story that, having been considered in broad terms in the Chamber of the House of Commons, a Bill is then subjected to scrutiny line by line in Committee. That includes this most important matter that we are discussing now about the medical test.
The Bill was subjected to scrutiny in great detail by Opposition Members, but not by Conservatives. I was genuinely surprised that certain Conservative Back Benchers spent more time in conversation with their secretaries on constituency matters in the Committee Corridor than they did in Committee. When challenged on that, because we tried to encourage genuine debate and scrutiny, one Conservative Back Bencher—I forget which one—said, "Don't tell me this. I approve of the Bill. I do not need to be here."
Surely that is not the point. Either we take the scrutiny of such proposed legislation seriously—not least social security legislation, where the detail is so vital; hence the debate today about the medical test and our urging of a report—or we do not. I think that the Bill, in a sense, has become a case study of poor Government and poor parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I am sure that the Conservative Back Bencher to whom my hon. Friend referred was the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). My hon. Friend will notice that he has not even attended this evening's debate. I am sure that it has not escaped my hon. Friend's notice that few Conservative Members have turned up for the debate on this important aspect of the new clause. Perhaps that is something that he would want to write into his revision.

Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee.

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend informs me from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Teignbridge was not on the Committee, but I am sure that when my hon. Friend amends the textbook on the British constitution, this will prove a major part of the new edition.

Mr. Wicks: I am flattered that my hon. Friend was scrutinising my speech with such care and made that timely intervention.
We are dealing with a serious matter. Although I do not want to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many of us returned time and again in Committee to one of the recent pieces of social security legislation—the Child Support Act 1991. Why? We now find that that piece of legislation, which went through Parliament and Committee, is causing an almighty row because what we may regard as "the detail" is blood and thunder detail for families in this country. I understand that today there has been a huge lobby of Parliament because people are upset by the detail.
At this stage, the medical test and the Bill are not causing a furore; the Press Gallery is not packed. Whatever parliamentary correspondents do, we find that they do not correspond with Parliament. No journalist ever attended the Committee stage of the Bill. It will be different, however, when the effects of the detail come home to roost. Constituents will turn up in our surgeries, saying, "Once upon a time I would have received such and such a benefit. I have just taken the medical test, but I did not pass: I was told that I was capable of work." My constituents will then say to me, "Mr. Wicks, I tried my best to find work: here are my applications. I have been told that, because I have a disability and am over 50"—or 55—" I shall not be able to find work."
I know what will happen. Conservative Members will say, "How can this have happened? We do not understand it. Who was looking after the detail?" Indeed, I have heard Conservative Members say of the Child Support Act, "I support the principle"—that ritual cry—"but I did not know that it would be like this." I suggest that even those hon. Members who spent hours in the Corridor when they should have been in the Committee Room will say to Ministers, "What has happened to the detail? A man cannot find work; he has a disability; yet he has failed the medical test. Think again."
5.30 pm
This is important. We should draw lessons from our recent experience of scrutiny, or rather lack of scrutiny: Bills, not least social security Bills, should include social impact statements spelling out the implications for people in the real world, and there should be pre-legislation hearings. I remember the Minister of State's saying that he thought that that was a good idea. We need Back Benchers on both sides who, while playing a party role, also take very seriously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of licence, but I should be grateful if he would now return to the new clause.

Mr. Wicks: You have been very kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), I did not speak Welsh, which would


have given you an opportunity to intervene earlier; I have done my best with my north London accent. I am glad that you have allowed me to express some of my thoughts, because the way in which we scrutinise the legislation is clearly important.
We should consider very carefully the motivation behind the Bill and the medical test. Have we been presented with a measure that is principally a piece of social policy—including the provision for the medical test, which we think warrants an annual report—or with a piece of financial policy?
In Committee, we were assured that the medical test provision was truly a piece of medicine—a piece of science —which had little to do with finance or the Treasury. I know you will consider what I am about to say very relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill contains no impact statement about people, but it contains such a statement about money: we are told that, by 1996–97, gross savings of £1.45 billion will have been achieved.
How can we be confident that the medical test will be objective if we already know the bottom line? The Treasury has set the targets. Whatever the details of the medical test, and whatever the committee of experts may come up with, the threshold for receipt or non-receipt of benefit will have to be set according to financial targets. I have thought hard about this, and I consider it wise of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Withington (Mr. Bradley) to suggest an annual report on the test if the Bill is enacted—which I hope it will not be; I hope that the House will think again. We should be able to see for ourselves how the test is working in practice—whether it is working according to a financial criterion, or just according to a medical one.
If we allow the Bill and the medical test to proceed, the inevitable consequence will be the impoverishment of many people with disabilities, and their further marginalisation in the community. That is the great worry. In future, more people who do not receive this benefit will find themselves on unemployment benefit or income support: that is clear from the financial statement in the Bill. The Government admit that although there will be gross savings, there will also be marginal costs as a result of the increase in income support and unemployment benefits. Perhaps Ministers will now come clean, and tell us how many more people with disabilities—people whom we should be looking after—will become dependent on means-tested income support if the Bill is passed.
I think that there is an alternative to the medical test. It should be understood that people with disabilities are full citizens who should be part of an active society. The best policy that we could introduce is not about incapacity, but about capacity and full employment. Unless we return to full employment, we shall never be able to integrate those affected by the Bill into the community. If the Government are assuming mass unemployment in the future, it seems that more and more people with disabilities will become marginalised and unable to seek work; more and more will depend on income support. I believe that there is an alternative way forward, in terms of a public policy with decent social implications for people with disabilities which would also make economic sense.
In Committee, Conservative Members—occasionally, when they were present—would throw the following

thought at us: "Are you saying that you would spend more money?" I think that we are saying that the right package of economic and social policies for those with disabilities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is displaying great skill, but we are returning to a Second Reading debate. I ask him to relate his remarks to new clause 3.

Mr. Wicks: I am coming to my final paragraph, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I firmly resist the charge that financial costs are attached to our suggestions in Committee. I believe that there is a way in which the House—and even the present Government—can think about people with disabilities and the range of policies that they need which would not only be desirable in social terms but would make economic sense to our community.

Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) usually speaks for the Liberal Democrats on social security matters. Unfortunately, he has been placed in an unenviable position: amendments have been tabled in his name both here and in the Standing Committee of which he is currently a member. As he has no party colleague in the Committee, it fell to me to deputise here —which I do with some trepidation, given the thoughtful speeches that we have heard so far. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have given the matter considerable attention and thought.
It is apparent to me that the application, or the detail, of the all-work test is so vague, unpredictable and unknown that—having briefly looked through some papers—I may know as much about it as almost any other hon. Member who is present. As I listened to the debate and tried to take in what was happening, I had some horrible ideas about what might be in prospect.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) referred to someone in the position of Professor Stephen Hawking. Let us suppose that someone who had not even acquired O-levels found himself in exactly the same medical condition. It sounds to me as though such a person would be deemed fit for work, and able to take on the job of professor of science at one of our leading universities.
The Minister may say that that could not possibly happen—

Mr. Burt: No, it could not.

Mr. Wallace: But I am not entirely persuaded by what I have heard so far. I accept that I have given an extreme example, but I feel that in any event there is considerable scope for injustice and unfairness to be visited on people with disabilities, or what could be described in common parlance—as opposed to the legal terminology that we are about the pass into law—as incapacity for work.
One can perhaps think of a number of such factors, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West referred to a report by Richard Berthoud of the Policy Studies Institute which outlined some of the circumstances that could arise.
The report draws attention to the case of a person who is academically well qualified and lives in a town where there is a considerable amount of service industry, especially clerical jobs. That person sustains a serious


injury to his leg but, after it has healed, is able to return to employment and take up the clerical duties in which he was involved before.
Another person in the same town who suffers exactly the same accident might have a different employment history. Perhaps he left school without any qualifications and laboured on a building site. He might have the same physical injuries, but suitable employment opportunities might not be available for him.
We are being asked to accept a test that relates purely to the narrow range of medical functions. It is merely a check list that will be ticked off, or otherwise, but which will take no account of how a particular medical condition can affect someone. It is not simply a matter of whether someone is capable of walking 100 m; there might be psychological effects. A person's previous training and the current job opportunities must be taken into account. What are a person's living circumstances?
In my constituency, many people live miles from the nearest town. An injury that renders them incapable of driving a car might cut off a range of employment opportunities, but, if they lived in the middle of a town, a good number of employment opportunities might be open to them.
Another mental picture of the system being set up is that it resembles the competitions or quizzes that sometimes appear in magazines. One is asked questions A, B and C, and one receives five points for A, two points for B and zero for C, and the points are added up at the end. It seems that we are devising a rigid system under which points will be added together: if one scores more than a certain number, one is disqualified from benefit, whereas if one falls beneath that number, one qualifies.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). He said that the application of such a system places a great deal of power in the hands of those setting the rules. One of the briefings that I have seen believes that the Government estimate that 400,000 current recipients of invalidity benefit will have to undergo a new test as their cases come up for review, and that as many as 250,000 will no longer qualify.
I have no doubt that an estimate has been made—it was probably in the original Bill before Second Reading, when the financial consequences had to be spelt out—of how much saving will accrue to the Treasury. One has the feeling that, as long as there is a strict objective test with a score card, it will be possible to make adjustments to ensure that the anticipated savings materialise, and that is quite apart from the effect that the system could have on individuals.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West made another important point. It is not only a question of incapacity for work or otherwise, but of a person's ability to get work even if he or she is deemed to be capable of work. This raises the question of the prejudice and discrimination that is often suffered by people with disabilities. I remember that, in the days when I was my party's employment spokesman, the issue of the 3 per cent. quota arose. It was clear that it was honoured far more in the breach than in its enforcement. I fear that we are ensuring that many people will lose on invalidity benefit, without any obvious road back to employment.
It might not be possible to get them but, in addition to all the figures that the Government would be asked to put before Parliament under new clause 3, it might have been

useful to add another one—what percentage of those who have been deemed capable of work got jobs within two months of that determination being made?
5.45 pm
Some element of judgment must come into play, and it is important that general practitioners should have a role. Many doctors are not keen on having thrust on them the duty of being, as it were, enforcement officers on behalf of the Benefits Agency. It is perfectly understandable that they do not want to be the last arbiters, but I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that GPs nevertheless have an important role to play.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), said:
GPs retain an important role.
He said that a GP's input would be
a vital part of the consideration … We are not writing GPs out of the picture.
My colleagues and I tabled amendment No.22 because we seek some way to ensure that the role, advice and information of GPs can be properly channelled into those considerations.
The Minister also said:
The GP's opinion on whether a person is incapable for work is not specifically sought."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, February 1994; c. 351–2.]
He said that after having said that consideration of the GP's opinion was part and parcel of the process. The purpose of amendment No.22 is to ensure that, in regulations, a way is defined
in which relevant evidence or information submitted by that person or by any medical practitioner or professional health worker will be used during the assessment".
It is our concern that such a method is introduced as early as possible.
The briefings which I think all hon. Members will have received from citizens advice bureaux give examples of cases in which the absence of a general practitioner's involvement at the critical tribunal stage led to benefit being withdrawn and having to be granted again after an appeal, or even in the intervening period.
For example, a CAB in the west midlands reports that a woman in her mid-fifties was examined by a medical officer after four months on invalidity benefit. She was found fit for work, but, at the tribunal, on presentation of a letter from her GP, the Benefits Agency presenting officer conceded that the withdrawal of invalidity benefit had been inappropriate. Similar cases of invalidity benefit being withdrawn but restored after a report from a GP have been reported in Staffordshire and the north-east.
We want GPs to be involved in the provision of essential information. Not only should that be recognised and accepted as part of the process, but the way in which the information is to be channelled into the process should be formally set out. It should not be left to chance or good fortune, or to whether someone has got around to getting their GP's view.
It is not necessarily true that GPs are usually lenient. Indeed, one survey showed that 80 per cent. of respondents believed that their GPs sometimes refused sick notes to people whom advisers considered to be unfit for work. We should trust the medical profession to give its view—a view very often based on long experience of the person involved.
On the day that a person is assessed, he may be capable of carrying out particular tasks and functions, but a medical person who has had the opportunity to see the progress of


a condition, or who has seen the person a number of times, might know that, under stress, in certain circumstances or more often than not, that person will not be capable of performing those functions.
We are trying to secure justice. If the new clause stands as it is, I, like the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, fear that, in the months and years to come, many more constituents will come to our surgeries asking how in the world it was ever accepted. We shall have to say that some of us warned of the problem at the time. We hope, having issued the warnings, that the Minister is prepared to listen and to do something about it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: One of the hazards facing any legislation is either that it slips through the House of Commons late at night or that it is fairly lightly examined. I am afraid that the Bill and its implications are in grave danger of not being properly examined.
I do not find it surprising that there are no former members of the Committee present on the Government Benches. I remember being stunned in Committee by a Conservative Whip when, in a voice which carried round the room, he said to one of his own Members who was making what I thought was a coherent speech "Sit down you little 'blank' and shut up." I remember being even more astonished when the Member did as he was told. It illustrated simply the difference between Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and Her Majesty's Government, because had I, as a Whip, endeavoured to say such a thing to a Labour Member, I suspect that I might have been in a highly dangerous position.
We are discussing a Bill which will affect some of the most vulnerable people. I find it a horrifying suggestion. It is a cynical move, which is made clear in the Bill by the suggestion that large sums of money are to be saved by the change in the legislation. If it were a straightforward matter of changing a medical examination and of ensuring that general practitioners were not put under unnecessary pressure to support their patients when they did not believe that it was justified, the Government should be able to spell out in exact detail the sort of tests which are to be applied, the kind of hazards that the applicant will have to face and exactly how the applicants will be expected to respond. That has not happened.
Regulations are increasingly used as a trick to hide from Members of Parliament the implications of changes in legislation. It is not the first time that that has happened; it is an increasing habit. The Government consistently introduce regulations, not on the basis of a full discussion of the Bill in Committee, but in subsequent moves after the Bill has reached the statute book. That is not only unhelpful but positively misleading.
The Child Support Agency is an interesting example of that process. We were told of its principle and the House of Commons took on trust the ideas that Ministers presented as a clear impression of what was to happen. We are told that the legislation before us will not damage the interests of the disabled, but that it is simply a matter of ensuring that the medical tests are set out clearly, that people have to comply with certain conditions and that if they are in receipt of the wrong benefit, all that will happen is that they will find alternative forms of benefit or will receive alternative forms of support. Frankly, I do not believe that.
When two of the nicer members of the Government are sitting on the Front Bench, it is difficult to be as vicious as

one would want to be in the debate, but I do not believe that the Government are bringing forward the medical tests because they think that they will improve the lot of people who are receiving the wrong benefit: they are looking to save money. If they were not, they would have no objection to the new clause, which sets out a number of sensible, straightforward ideas. What is the objection to telling Parliament how many people attended a medical examination, or what number of people, having attended an examination, were determined to be incapable for work? What is the difficulty?
The Government intend to do something much more straightforward—to try to save money from those who are already among some of the poorest people in our society. We do not have to consider the proposed changes to know what will happen. In case after case in our constituencies people are referred to tribunals. The length of time before their cases are heard is becoming longer. When they eventually get to court, a number of them receive verdicts that they do not accept and they undergo the whole procedure again.
A number of general practitioners support the claimants because they know that the claimants are telling the truth and finally, as happened today, one receives a letter from the agency—not even the Department—saying that it is correct that that man or woman, who has gone through an enormous amount of highly complex bureaucratic machinery, is to be given back their benefit, but only after a long time.
Ministers seem to think that, if people are deprived of their benefit for a number of weeks or, in some cases, for months, giving them a sum of money is all that is necessary. That does not begin to deal with the difficulty.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am delighted to give way to the Minister.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady mentioned that case a little while ago. I had not heard of it previously. What she says disturbs me and I am more than happy to consider the circumstances. I should not like her to think that I consider that what she has described to be normal or just. I shall certainly look at the circumstances.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I must give the Minister his due. I do not believe that he would consider it normal or just, but the reality is that his Government have introduced legislation which has precisely the effect of that case. The fact that the Minister does not accept it cheers me up only marginally.
Increasing numbers of people who are in receipt of benefit are being destabilised because they are being told that they will have their right to benefit questioned in such a manner that they will have to go through a great deal of re-examination, that they may have to present the case over again, that they may lose their benefit, that they may have to reapply and that it may take some months before the case is cleared up.
In a civilised society, I do not regard that as an acceptable way to conduct matters. It means that, if people are already on benefit, they will tend to try to borrow and beg from everybody they know to keep themselves going while their benefit is stopped, and when they finally receive the money they will be in such difficulty that they will—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is an experienced campaigner in the House and she knows full well that there is a new clause before us to which I wish that she would address her remarks.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I would not dream of upsetting you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in any way.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Yes, you would.

Mrs. Dunwoody: No; I would not dream of it.
The new clause addresses the important question about the medical test. The House of Commons ought to be informed at every level of what is happening to those who are in receipt of benefit. When the Bill was introduced, I was horrified by the suggestion that general practitioners were not altogether to be trusted and that, if they had people on their list who were to be in receipt of benefit, we could not wholly take their word on a person's medical condition, because they might be influenced by their relationship with the patient.
h
In 22 years of general practice, I have met all sorts of general practitioners—some pompous, some intelligent, some less intelligent, some hard-working and some who were not overwhelmed with a desire to kill themselves with hard work. However, one thing that they all had in common was their ability to talk to their patients to a greater or a lesser degree. The idea that they will not be able to tell their patients honestly about their medical condition and about their right to receive benefit is a crazy and ill-founded idea.
I would rather that the House did not pass the Bill because I have grave doubts about it. If we accept the new clauses, we may go some way towards giving ourselves a fall-back position because I suspect that, in a year, the House of Commons will have to re-examine the entire legislation to see whether it is working and what effect it is having on recipients of benefit.
I take the Minister's word for it that he is happy to investigate specific cases. That is helpful, and I shall take him up on it. However, I tell him firmly that I think that the change in the law is not about entitlement to the correct benefit—I wish that I thought it were—but about saving the Treasury money. The Treasury has lost a lot of money and it has to get it back. People in receipt of benefit are a jolly good target.
I must also tell the Minister that I do not think that the Bill will have that effect. I do not believe that it has been thought through. We may find that at the end of its first year of operation the medical tests are not producing the saving of money, and that all that has happened is a change in the circumstances of the people at present in receipt of invalidity benefit.
I regard the Bill as a most unacceptable move. It is doubtful in intent, and I believe that it will be unworkable. The people who will pay for it, as always, will not be all those Tory Members of Parliament who are not here tonight, but the people who are most in need—the people now in receipt of benefit.

6 pm

Mr. George Mudie: It is quite a challenge to follow that impressive address by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
I rise to speak with some regret at the fact that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. He is the villain of

the piece and the architect of the legislation, and he should be forced to sit through the debate and hear the truth about it being aired—he should even forced to defend it.
As I said in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People are the acceptable face of the Department of Social Security, and it is unfair on them that they should have to sit through 25 or 30 hours of Committee proceedings, and then come to the Chamber, to defend the indefensible.
In Committee, I drew an analogy with the present Government ban on Sinn Fein, under which we see Gerry Adams speaking but cannot hear his voice, so his words are spoken by an actor. In fairness to the two Ministers present, it would have been better if, during proceedings on the Bill, the voice of the Secretary of State had been piped in. It is clearly not those two humane and compassionate junior Ministers who are forcing through the legislation. No, what we see is the hard heart of the Secretary of State in action.
I regret that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, partly because on Second Reading he said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has also said —it is worth repeating—that the legislation affects the most vulnerable people in our society. The Secretary of State finds it difficult to recognise vulnerability or compassion, so when he recognises who are the most vulnerable, we must be well aware what we are dealing with.
The amendments concern the most vulnerable people in our community, so they require great concern and great thought. If the Minister is really so compassionate and so worried about individuals having such a long wait for their appeal hearings, and the consequent effects on their benefits and their families—I shall touch on those later —the best way in which to show that his concern is genuine would be to accept amendment No. 26, which would ensure that appeals would be heard within 10 working days. That would show a real acceptance of the vulnerability of the people concerned.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, become understandably worried that we are straying from the chosen path when we refer to the Child Support Agency, but there is a valid analogy with the Bill.
One of the reasons behind the amendments is the fact that the Bill will adversely affect individuals; it will not affect whole communities, so there will be no great uproar as there was with the poll tax. Like the Child Support Agency, the Bill will adversely affect individuals who may be isolated in the community. The argument is exactly the same as the argument about the Child Support Agency. We can discuss the principle and largely agree on that, but it is the operation of the detail, and its effect on individuals, that will cause the problems.
Because of your knowledge of your area and the industries in it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that any cut in invalidity benefit, such as the cut that will result from the introduction of incapacity benefit, will have dramatic effects on the standard of living of families whose head is someone who, through working in one of the industries with which you are familiar, has suffered accidents or strains on the body, and who is unable to get the money.
I know that you worry when we keep referring to the Child Support Agency. It is because the same principles—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not worry at all if the hon. Gentleman will base his remarks on new clause 3 and the amendments associated with it.

Mr. Mudie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
New clause 4 calls for an annual report, which would reveal the facts and figures to enable the House to see the individual distress that will be caused throughout the country.
The Bill is a disgrace, not only because of the content that I have already mentioned, but on constitutional grounds too. Even according to the Government's figures, it is estimated that 250,000 people out of the 600,000 on the existing benefit who will be referred for medical tests will lose their benefit. On constitutional grounds, I worry about the House of Commons passing a law the heart of which is unknown to its Members.
I shall give a brief illustration of how bad the constitutional effects are. Clause 5 introduces a new section of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 that has seven subsections, most of which begin with phrases such as "Regulations may provide". Subsection (2) begins:
Regulations may make provision as to".
Subsection (3) begins, "Regulations may provide", and so does subsection (4). Subsection (5) begins, "Regulations may prescribe". I could go on.
Those subsections deal with a crucial part of the Bill —the
Test of incapacity for work
which is related to the medical test, yet six out of the seven do not contain provisions that we can argue about with objectivity and detailed knowledge, because everything will be subject to regulation. The detail is not here. It is difficult to deal with the details of the medical tests, because we do not have them.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking makes a mockery of this Bill, because, with his disabilities, he would clearly be eligible for one of the fast-track cases under the legislation. He would go through—he would not be subjected to a medical test, and he would get the benefit.
The Minister may say that he would get the benefit because the Government are not taking age, experience, education and previous work into consideration. I ask the Government what would happen if an ex-coal miner got the same disease as Stephen Hawking.

Mr. Burt: He would get the benefit.

Mr. Mudie: Exactly, but he would not get the benefit because of age, experience and so on—he would get it on purely medical grounds. One of the factors that is wrong with the Bill is that the medical test will be the be-all and end-all, and no other factors will be taken into consideration. Incredibly, here we are in March after a long session in Committee—I think that it was 25 to 30 hours.

Mr. Ingram: It is 34.

Mr. Mudie: We spent 34 hours in Committee. Here we are on Report, and we do not have the details of the medical test, which is at the heart of the Bill.
Can I tell the House anything about the medical test? I cannot do so, because it is not spelled out in the Bill. Can anyone tell the House about the medical test? No. The details of the medical test will come before the House after

the Bill has gone through, when we are on holiday in August. The Bill will go to another place, although there are no details of the medical test—and they are not expected until August.
I think that Madam Speaker was in the Chair when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) was explaining who will draw up the test. There are 80 faceless people drawing up the test. The Minister is so confident about the legislation and its principles that the medical test is being drawn up in secret, and he will not allow the names of the people who are drawing it up to be made public.
In Committee, when we discovered that two of the 80 experts did not wish to have the Minister's protection and were prepared to make their names public, we were told that they were forbidden to do so. Therefore, the disabled organisations which wished to have a dialogue with the experts to ensure that the medical tests were the best that could be worked out among everyone involved could not do so, because the identities of the people who are drawing up the tests are secret.
This secret medical test will be coming in August, and we are discussing the Bill in March. If that is not defensible in the country on a matter that will take benefit away from 250,000 people, I do not know what is indefensible. [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary wants me to give way, I shall sit down.
I shall refer to amendment No. 26 briefly, because I do not wish to take up the time of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke in telling terms about the amount of time it takes to hear appeals. If the amendment is accepted, it will mean that appeals must be heard within 10 days. I am pleased to know that I have the right amendment for once. This is an historic moment in my speaking history in the Chamber, and I hope that it will allow the Chair to relax. I even know the contents of the amendment, which makes a welcome change.
Amendment No. 26 says that any appeals would be heard within 10 working days, and individuals would be allowed to be represented. Both parts of the amendment are important, but I wish to talk about the first part, because it is especially important. As a result of the Minister's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I hope that he will tell the House that he accepts the amendment.
6.15 pm
If the information provided by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is genuine, the Government's statistics show a distressing situation. According to the information provided to hon. Members, the length of time for hearing appeals increased from 21 weeks in 1986 to 30 weeks in 1992.
I shall go a bit further in terms of the repercussions for an individual. If an individual has been turned down for benefit and has lodged an appeal, he cannot get unemployment benefit or income support, and is therefore incomeless. I was grateful for the sign of humanity—I do not say this lightly; it is accepted—that brought the Under-Secretary to the Dispatch Box to ask my hon. Friend for details, because the present situation is not acceptable.
At present, it takes 30 weeks for an appeal to be heard, which can mean 30 weeks without income. If the Government's figures are accepted—I intend to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the debate on a later


amendment—they show that the average benefit paid is £79. If a person who is sick long-term appeals against a decision and is turned down, how does he run his home?
I understand that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, get very excited when we refer to the Child Support Agency. However, the same Department takes a decision which lands on people who lead very ordinary lives with very ordinary budgets. It takes a decision that has a frightening financial effect on people, and the Government wonder why there is an outcry.
I challenge the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and accept that 30 weeks translates into seven months. Would the Minister, without warning—even though, after his considerable time in the House, he may have built up considerable savings—like to have to go without income for the next seven months? That can be the effect of a decision. If that happened to me, without the considerable savings that I am sure the Minister has, the effect on my domestic expenditure would be devastating. However, that is what is happening.
This is no game; this is not semantics. When hard-working people in communities all over the country —according to Government statistics, we are talking about people over 50 on average earnings, manual workers and people who are often in occupations without sick schemes —are off work because of illness, they face up to seven months before a decision is taken and they can get some money flowing into the family. What effect does that have on rent, hire purchase and mortgages? What family's income could withstand seven months with a block on one income?
I am grateful that the Under-Secretary leaped to the Dispatch Box, and I would not for a second challenge his compassion, but I want now to see the proof of it. That proof would be his acceptance of amendment No. 26, which would impose on the bureaucrats who run the system that two weeks is a sufficient time for anybody to be without income, and that an appeal should be heard within two weeks.
Although I said that it was less important than my previous point, the question of representation is important. I recently appealed to a Child Support Agency tribunal, and I made the point that both the child support officer and the chairman of the tribunal seemed to have a thick handbook. I made the point informally after the hearing that it would have been better if they had warned me, as a representative, that they would be using that handbook. It might have saved hours in the hearing.
Incredibly, I was told that representatives are not told, because it is difficult for them to understand those books. Those involved with the tribunal have trouble in understanding them, so the representatives would not be able to understand. They may have got that right in my case, but, as a general principle, it is rather patronising. It seems to be symptomatic of the objection to representation and of a culture in which representation is a nuisance.
In 1990, the Public Accounts Committee looked at invalidity benefit. The Committee's report showed that people with representation had greater success than those who were not represented. The technicality of the proceedings and the regulations makes that straightforward. That point should make amendment No. 26 even more alluring to the Minister, and I look forward to him joining me in the Lobby.

Mr. Flynn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends, and the prophecies of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will come back to haunt the Government.
This is a deeply flawed Bill, which has no central heart. We are passing the bare bones of the legislation. We know that the Government are saying—as they said often in Committee—"We are the Government, trust us." Some of us take a rather cynical view of that promise. They have said again and again that they are nice chaps. There was wonderful praise in Committee for the two Ministers who are on the Government Front Bench today. They are saintlike and give all of their salaries to the poor.
We pointed out that there are other people on that Front Bench who are absent now. Those people help to make up the Government's soft man/hard man technique, which is well-known for interrogating prisoners. The prisoner gets pummelled into one state by the crude savage, and then the nice man comes in and offers him a cup of tea and a bag of sweets. That is the kind of psychological treatment that the House and the country are getting from the Ministers.
The Secretary of State—who is absent—is a terrifying sight when we see him in full colour on television. At the Nuremberg rally—the Conservative party conference—he threatened everything under the sun. That was the last time that he descended to bad German and barbed French—"Ich bin ein Führer", or "Après moi, la déluge." It was a terrifying sight. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the list that he had before of all the scapegoats that he was to pursue in the coming year.
The great problem for the Government is translating the party rhetoric into legislation and, in their attempt to do so, they produce atrocious legislation. The new clause gets to the heart of the Bill—the test for incapacity for work. I have sat through many hours of the Committee—as have many of my hon. Friends—and I still do not know the answer to the central conundrum.
It is good to know that Government Back Benchers are unanimous in their support of the new clause—they speak with one voice, it may be said. They are saying that they will approve the new clause, and that is splendid. We must test whether we believe the Government when they say, "We are the Government, trust us." They have enunciated a new heresy today. An entirely new part of the Government's policy has been announced, and can be described as the right to lie.
I have heard of the right to buy, in housing—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is pursuing an interesting case where the right to buy has become the right to steal—but the right to lie is something quite new. I understand that the Minister with responsibility for open government told a Committee that, in exceptional cases, it is necessary to say something untrue in the House of Commons. The little trust that we had in the Government will be shattered.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: That is a disgrace.

Mr. Flynn: That is what a Minister said this morning to a Committee. One of the national newspapers has quite rightly headlined that as a shocking statement.
Are the Government telling the truth now about the Bill? Our cynicism suggests that the new clause is needed. It asks for very little. It provides that there should be a report to both Houses of Parliament that would reveal the


effectiveness or otherwise of the test for incapacity. The Government still want to proceed with the all-work test, which is based on a fundamental misconception—perhaps the Minister can try to explain it to us again. The misconception is that the capacity for work can be defined as an objective test that applies to everybody, regardless of his education, training, work history, personality, age and ability to cope with the consequences of ill-health and disability.
An anonymous army of experts is meeting, perhaps in a secret cave at midnight, to decide on the score sheet on which people will be classified as capable or incapable of work. That is a fundamental absurdity. The case of Stephen Hawking was quoted at length during the Committee. Another case quoted was that of someone who was blind and might not be able do his work, but who might be able to become a Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party. It is nonsense to suggest that there can be any test for incapacity for work.
Traditionally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the industries where you and I worked before we entered this place, young men who were healthy, fit and in the prime of their lives did the hard manual labour. Towards the final years of their working lives, they would have lighter jobs, such as sweeping up or possibly clerical work, which would be made available to them if their health was failing. That can happen to many of us. We can all go through periods of incapacity from the moment we come into this world, and we can have failing capacity throughout our lifetimes.
In these hard, Thatcherite days, if someone can no longer do his full work, he is thrown out. There is nothing left, and there is no alternative. However, we are entering an age when many alternatives are available. I wish that the Government would take seriously the opportunities provided by the new supercomputers, which will provide thousands of jobs on the information highway. It looks as if we will lose out on that, as we have lost out in many other industrial developments.
Those opportunities will, however, produce work that requires little physical effort. A keyboard must be operated, but little is required in the way of physical strength. That does not mean that anyone can do it. Someone in the unfortunate state that Stephen Hawking is in could not; his brain functions very well, but he can hardly even use his voice.
Some people can work in such jobs and can contribute richly to our society. However, many people could not do so because of their background and often because of an objection—based on their generation—to using high-tech machines, which now affect all available work. People who used to do manual jobs in a heavy industry find that there is nothing else that they can do and that they cannot move to the sunrise industries that are taking its place.
The Bill will have a catastrophic effect on certain areas of the country where many people receive invalidity benefit. That is not because doctors in those regions operate a different regime but because there is a tradition of heavy industry, which crippled and maimed the people who worked in the mines, quarries and steelworks. When workers in those industries finished their careers they were generally very run down and greatly damaged by their work.
6.30pm
The Bill will not only damage people in those areas; it will hit their communities. We shall be taking a vast sum of money—millions of pounds—from small communities. We shall be taking away money that went straight into the local economy. It was not invested in Lloyd's, or on the stock exchange, or spent in Penang; it was spent in local shops and went straight into the local economy. We shall be taking that money out of the economy.
The effect of social security legislation on the great British press has been mentioned. Tonight, one newspaper is carrying a headline about a Minister's right to lie to the House of Commons, but no newspapers will report the debate tomorrow. I once heard hon. Members who take an interest in social security described as social security buffs, as though they collected stamps, were interested in steam engines or must be a special breed to be interested in such an obscure subject. However, that subject involves the livelihood of tens of millions of people and the small disposable income on which they depend on. Few parts of our work can be more important or have a more profound effect on the lives of millions of people. The Bill will not affect the lives of members of the press, however, as few of them receive invalidity benefit.

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have looked closely at the new clauses and amendments and he seems to be very wide of them. Will he return to the subject under discussion?

Mr. Flynn: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In Committee, we discussed the medical test that lies at the heart of the legislation. The consultation document was the only written sign of Government thinking and certain organisations were invited to respond to it. However, even that document was modified between its publication date and the closing date for responses. We are therefore being asked to approve legislation that is merely a sign of what the Government will do and that does not contain any of the details.
We could argue that the test is not so much a medical test, as has been claimed, as a mechanical test. It is a test of a person's ability to perform certain activities. It does not make sense to have that type of test unless there is some way to relate it to the type of work available in the area, to the job that the person concerned can do and to his or her training and ability. That is our fundamental objection.
We are asking for very little in the new clause. We want
an account of the number of people who attended a medical examination under that part of that Act and a description of … such an examination".
The House has been down this road many times before. Hon. Members have referred to the deficient Child Support Agency legislation—the Child Support Act 1991. I cannot find a Back-Bench Member of Parliament who admits to being a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Child Support Bill. There must have been a Committee stage, but no one confesses to having been a part of it, apart from Front-Bench Members, who are the guilty men—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, whether that is true or not, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Flynn: By asking for the accounts, Madam Deputy Speaker, we shall improve the legislation.
Will it be difficult to provide such an account? The information must be available. The Department must have some way to keep a record of how this disastrous legislation unfolds in the years to come. Millions of people will be affected by the Bill. We need to know how many people have medical examinations.
When questions were tabled about the progress of other new legislation and about disability working allowance, we found that the results were quite different from what the House had expected. When the Bill is enacted we know that there will be confusion and that people will be upset by the unfairnesses of it. It is essential for Parliament to have information about how it is working at regular intervals.
In new clause 3, we are asking for
an account of the number of people who having attended such an examination were determined as incapable for work".
That is crucial because we believe that the legislation will be a disaster. The Bill is a means to cut expenditure and it will take people off one benefit and put them on another.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing not the Bill but two new clauses and several amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman of that fact.

Mr. Flynn: I was quoting from new clause 3(c), which asks for
an account of the number of people who having attended such an examination were determined as capable of work".
How will the test work? What will take place? I am sure that the Minister will be happy to tell me.
The new clause also requires
an account of the reasons for determinations of capacity for work".
In the absence of any details from the Government, we can conclude only that the decisions will be subjective and will be made on the spot and that the same injustices, unfairness and different treatments that exist with the social fund will result from this legislation. Benefit will depend on whether one turns up on a Monday, or in March, or on whether one comes from one side of the street or the other. We already have an example of imperfect legislation causing great unhappiness.
In new clause 3(e) we are asking for
an assessment of the medical test by such persons whom the Secretary of State may choose".
The test is new and we are going into uncharted waters without a rudder. Therefore, it is crucial that the Government accept the new clause.

Mr. Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to a variety of remarks on the amendments. I shall be as brief as I can, but I will try to cover them all. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) made many of the remarks straightforwardly, and they were amplified by some of his hon. Friends.
New clauses 3 and 4 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on aspects of the operation of the new incapacity benefit. New clause 3 wants such a report no later than 30 September 1996 on the operation of the new
test of incapacity for work".
The new clause also requests details of people who attend medical examinations under the Act between April 1995, when the test will be introduced, and September 1996.
There is a case to be made for the provision of information about the workings of the legislation, but I am not certain that there is a case to be made for the publication of a report as such. We shall collect

information of this type, and we believe that we shall do so in better quality and greater quantity than the new clause suggests. It would not be wise to restrict ourselves to the time scales and other parameters of the new clause.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Burt: Not at this stage; I should like to make some progress.
In the case of any social security benefit—new or existing—we routinely collect a wide range of statistical information. This is published both in the annual reports of social security statistics and in specialist studies, which include evaluation reports on specific benefits. It is all the more important that new benefits be monitored in order that their effectiveness and performance may be evaluated.
The new incapacity benefit is a good example of one that will be subject to very careful monitoring. The introduction of incapacity benefit brings a considerable change to the current provision of benefits for the sick and incapable by refocusing the benefit on those who, for medical reasons, are incapable of work.
By September 1996, incapacity benefit will have been in place for 18 months, and we shall have collected much information about its operation. I see no advantage in making reports to Parliament along the lines suggested, but the information will be available to hon. Members from a variety of sources, including the statistics that I have mentioned already, and parliamentary questions.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will know that, increasingly, hon. Members who put questions to his Department are referred to the relevant agency. They are told that the agency must take responsibility for day-to-day operations. The hon. Gentleman has not made a case for not publishing statistics, and he certainly has not made a case for Ministers' refusal to answer questions on the Floor of the House. Why cannot we have a report that is capable of being discussed by Members of Parliament? By his own evidence, he will by then have information.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady will be aware that answers to parliamentary questions that come through executive agencies are published, and that Ministers are responsible for answering on the Floor of the House any oral questions that relate to their work. In addition, there are plenty of opportunities for debate in the House about such matters.

Mr. Wallace: If questions such as those envisaged in the new clause are asked, will the Minister answer them, or will he refer them to the executive agency?

Mr. Burt: It will depend on the nature of the question. Hon. Members know that the next steps agencies are being developed in an attempt to separate the operational arm of Government from the policy arm. Policy questions are always answered by Ministers, but questions about operations can be answered more speedily by the executive agencies. Ultimately, however, Ministers are responsible for operations.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I should like to refer to a matter that I raised during a recent meeting with the Minister. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that, under the new regime, the range of questions answered will be no narrower than in the past? Can he give an assurance that, when an hon. Member presses for an answer from a Minister rather than from the agency, the Minister will not refuse to reply?

Mr. Burt: The rules governing parliamentary questions may be a little more strict than those governing letters. Suppose, for example, that an hon. Member presses for an answer from me about a particular operational matter relating to the Child Support Agency. I take the view that the chief executive should first deal with the query. That is the purpose of the agency. However, if ultimately pressed, I shall answer by letter. Slightly different rules may apply to parliamentary questions. However, such questions are always published, so the information is made available.
I should like now to deal with a number of specific issues in relation to new clause 3. The debate was started with the usual comments about the Government's mean-mindedness. I should like to put in hon. Members' pipes three facts for them to smoke later—if such a metaphor is not politically incorrect these days.
The Government's record on benefits for disabled people is extraordinarily good. Spending has increased by 225 per cent. since 1978–79, and it is currently some £16.5 billion. The disability living allowance, which the Conservative Government introduced, has already brought 500,000 successful claims. Expenditure on invalid care allowance was £4 million in 1978, and it is now £366 million. I could give many more statistics, but I shall not do so. Any suggestion that the Government have been mean-minded in relation to the disabled is absolute fantasy, so I do not expect to hear that argument again tonight.
6.45 pm
The test of medical incapacity for work has constituted the meat of this discussion. What do we mean by "medical incapacity for work"? [Interruption.] I tried in Committee to give an explanation, and I am happy to repeat that explanation for the benefit of those who were not members of the Committee and for those who want further clarification.
We mean a restriction or lack of ability to perform the activities involved in working. We do not mean a restriction or lack of ability per se. Nor do we have in mind the fact that the likelihood of getting a particular job is reduced by factors other than medical ones. We are interested in the point at which the ability to do any form of work is substantially reduced—not the point at which all work becomes impossible.
We are trying to establish a threshold above which it would be unreasonable to expect people to work. Many disabled people will choose to work, but benefit will be available to those who do not. This is the Professor Stephen Hawking argument. There will clearly be no question of anyone in a position like that of Professor Hawking being required to work. That that remarkable man is able to work bears testimony to the fact that there are others, similarly disabled, who work—

Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burt: I have too much to get through. Several hon. Members who were on the Committee and who have been present throughout this debate need answers.
The threshold is not one above which it would be reasonable to expect anybody to be able to work. [Interruption.] Exactly: if Stephen Hawking can work, anyone can work. Clearly, that cannot be the test.
We are trying, through a process of consultation and consensus, to get a wide range of people—panel members and those they consult—to provide their definition of

incapacity for work: a definition that relates functional limitation to a substantial reduction in the ability to do work of some kind. That is what is being discussed at the moment.
A number of points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), whose contribution I greatly appreciated. My hon. Friend referred in particular to disabled people's disadvantage in the jobs market.
All employment services and training—enterprise and education programmes and services for unemployed people—are open to people with disabilities, often with the entry criteria relaxed. There is a wide range of services and schemes for those who need special help. In 1992–93, 62,978 people with disabilities were placed in jobs. That is an indication of what can happen, and it is a point of great importance.
A number of questions about the snapshot element were raised. Is the medical test a snapshot? No, it is not. It involves the completion of a questionnaire by the claimant, a statement of diagnosis by the claimant's general practitioner, a list of principal disabling conditions and, where required, referral to a departmental doctor for a report or examination.
The departmental doctor who examines a claimant will take account of the variability of the condition over given periods. Thus, the assessment will create an overall picture of the effect of the medical condition on the person's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities, and hence his capacity for work.
This is an appropriate point at which to mention the role of the general practitioner. As I said in Committee, the GP plays his vital role at the beginning of the period of incapacity, when it is still the GP's medical certificate that counts. Of course, it is very important that the GP should feel that he has a continuing role to play and may submit information on behalf of the patient at any stage.
Several hon. Members made a point about whether the GP's role was appropriate. It was alleged that we had suggested that, in some way, general practitioners had not been doing their job. That is not the point. General practitioners themselves have been concerned about their role.
I want to quote from a report to indicate that I am not the only person who is saying this. The medical journal Monitor Weekly of 2 June 1993 said:
More than two-thirds of the 100 GPs questioned by Monitor admitted they had signed a sickness benefit form for patients whom they knew not to be sick, or for an illness that would not prevent the patient from working.
That is borne out by other studies, which have shown that it is a question not of GPs' deliberately avoiding the test but of their taking part in a way that they find inappropriate as the gamekeepers in the area of this benefit.

Mr. Ingram: Can the Minister tell us how many general practitioners there are, what percentage the sample represents, and whether he considers it a scientific sample?

Mr. Burt: No one claims that the point made by GPs and what they have said over a period is invalid. Again, I am making the point that GPs retain a role in this benefit right the way through, but do not have the definitive and distinctive role that they had in the past. I see nothing wrong in that.
Turning to other issues, some hon. Members asked about particular illnesses and whether, on their own, they


would be a matter for a decision. The effect of any medical condition or disorder on the capacity to work is of cardinal importance, but such an effect can vary in intensity, over time, from mild to severe. We are taking steps to ensure that the needs of people with such conditions are addressed in developing the new tests. As part of the development of the medical assessment, in-house studies have researched the extent to which certain complicating factors, such as pain, stiffness and fatigue, may affect capacity to work. [Interruption.]
This research has been incorporated in the development of the medical test so far. The consultation exercise has informed the debate, and a consensus will be reached, to give sufficient and appropriate weighting to such factors in the medical test.
I turn now to information about the panel and the allegations there. Once again, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), in particular, and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), suggested that these people were being kept well away from the public, working in secret, working in caves.
All I can say is that members of the panel will certainly have had full access to the reports of the Committee and of these proceedings in the House, and I imagine that they would want to keep well away from hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Newport, West if they believe all they read about them.

Mr. Donald Dewar: That is rough.

Mr. Burt: It is as rough as I get: the hon. Gentleman knows that.
In relation to anonymity, we decided at the outset that the participants in the expert panel exercise should be anonymous, to ensure that they could give their professional input without the possibility of any external influence. [Interruption.] We have, however, readily agreed to give details of their areas of expertise. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) wishes to intervene, perhaps she will do so in the normal way, rather than from a seated position.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I would be delighted to, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Burt: I should not, but I will.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware how many doctors, male and female, sit on how many assessment panels, how many research papers they publish, and how much effort they put into researching a vast number of medical conditions and their implications? Why does the Minister have this poor, weak, pathetic, little group who must be protected, not only, according to him, from hon. Members but also from the general public, because they are somehow terrified that their views would be influenced? How many are there? How often are they protected? Is this the only way in which the Minister protects them, or does he protect them in other spheres as well?

Mr. Burt: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me complete my remarks about this section, and then she will hear some of the answers.
The group has access to anybody it wishes, and should its members wish to beat a path to the hon. Lady's door, they will no doubt do so. We have readily agreed to give details of their areas of expertise, and the answers to a number of parliamentary questions confirm that that is the case.
Once the expert panel have completed their work, we will give full details of all those who were approached. The idea is that we should issue a report round about August, which will summarise the results of the consultation exercise, the work of the panel and the evaluation exercise and which will also give details of who they are. There will then be an opportunity to consult in relation to the work they do, with a view to trying to get down to a test.
So there is no way in which this work can be said to be done in secret or anything like that. It is very important that the results of the panel's work are published in a formal report, so that they can form part of the debate on the regulations which will establish in law the medical test of incapacity for work.

Mr. Howarth: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the matter of confidentiality, may I press him on confidentiality in another but relevant context? He will be aware that one reason for the increasing number of appeals is that applicants are not made aware of the contents of the reports produced by the Benefits Agency medical service. Will my hon. Friend ensure that in future those reports are made available to claimants? It will show a properly respectful attitude to claimants, and it may mean rather less time, energy and resources wasted in appeals.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right, and I am happy to give the assurance, which I gave in Committee, that the information will be available.
New clause 4 seeks details of those appeals heard more than 10 days after they were made, a summary of the outcome of all appeals, a report on the extent to which medical evidence influenced the appeal outcome, a summary of the reasons for any failure by claimants to attend the hearing, and a report on the use made of claimants' representatives at an appeal.
The Benefits Agency and the independent tribunal service are committed to looking at ways to improve the clearance times for appeals across the whole social security benefit system. There has been considerable activity to identify and eradicate causes of delay, and there are some indications that this is already successful.
Every party, including claimants, representatives and adjudication officers, is entitled under Social Security (Adjudication) Regulation 4(2) to at least 10 days' notice of a hearing. Times run from the date of posting of the appeal papers to the day before the hearing of the case. However, both the claimant and the adjudication officer will wish to prepare submissions before a hearing is confirmed.
Furthermore, the claimant's representative will require time to prepare, and often he or she is unavailable for the designated hearing date, necessitating a postponement. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge the sheer impracticability of the suggestion that appeals should be heard within 10 days of their being made.
I am not certain what purpose the final two parts of the new clause would serve. Where the claimant is absent, the tribunal will satisfy itself that papers were duly notified and whether the claimant has indicated an intention to be


present, before considering whether to continue with the hearing. The Department has no obvious interest in the reasons for a claimant's absence or a yearly summary of those reasons. Similarly, it has no interest in the use made by claimants of representations at an appeal.
We are rather confused by amendment No. 22. It appears to seek to ensure that the Secretary of State shall set out in regulations the manner in which evidence and information are to be used in the assessment of incapacity.
If the House is looking for reassurance that all evidence, whether provided by the claimant, his GP or another person, will be properly considered in the assessment of incapacity, I can provide that reassurance. All relevant evidence will be taken into account at all stages, both in the Benefits Agency medical services doctor's assessment of the claimant and in the adjudication officer's determination of incapacity. Nothing will be excluded.
I question the need for amendment No. 24, the purpose of which is to require the claimant's GP to sit with the tribunal where the appeal concerns determination of the capacity to work. I am sure that the medical profession would not wish to spend time and resources in that manner. GPs, and the British Medical Association, have said for some time that acting as policemen for the social security system can undermine the doctor-patient relationship. They have complained for many years of an ever-increasing amount of paperwork.
The new method of assessing medical incapacity will mean that GPs need to complete many fewer statements of incapacity, and that the Department will be writing to them for further reports rather less often. I fail to see, therefore, what purpose amendment No. 24 serves.
In relation to amendment No. 25, our intention is that appeals against decisions made by an adjudication officer on incapacity benefit shall go to social security appeal tribunals. The tribunals comprise a legally qualified chairman, who guides the proceedings and advises on the law, and two lay members. The arrangement reflects the existing provision in invalidity and sickness benefits.
The most sensitive appeals on incapacity benefit will be those which concern a dispute about the level of the claimant's functional limitations. In these cases, we think that the tribunal should have access to independent medical expertise. The members of the tribunal, who are trained and expert in this, will weigh the evidence and they will make the decision.
I believe that the new clauses and amendments will not provide any additional benefits for claimants, and I invite hon. Members to reject them.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister's explanation has done no more than reinforce our view that an annual report is required. He started by claiming how good the Government's record was on benefits for disabled people, but forgot to mention that the purpose of the legislation is to cut £1.45 billion from that budget in the next two years. If that is a mark of success, I despair of the Government's intentions in relation to other aspects of social security.
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, well supported by all my hon. Friends, and especially by the contribution of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) which, as the Under-Secretary of State said, was greatly appreciated by the Government. It was

certainly greatly appreciated by Opposition Members because he fully supported our new clauses and amendments.
We would have had an even more interesting debate in Committee if the Government had not censored the membership of the Committee but had allowed a proper debate among people genuinely interested in the topic, with the knowledge and expertise that would have been greatly welcomed in our deliberations during our 35 hours in Committee. It is a sad reflection on that censorship that not one Conservative member of the Committee has deigned to turn up to speak on Report.
7 pm
By our proposals we simply seek information in terms of an annual report and a report on the appeals procedure to be presented to the House of Commons for proper parliamentary scrutiny. I find it incredible that a Government who claim to be the champions of open government should say that all that information will be gathered by the Government but that they will not present it in any coherent form to Parliament. One can only suspect that their real intention is to gather that information, recognise the realities of the way in which the medical test is operating and suppress the information, because they will not want a genuine debate in Parliament about the operation of the medical test.
The debate could not have made clearer why the medical test should be considered by us today—so that we could have a proper debate about the way in which it would operate in practice. The Minister has reaffirmed that the Government seek a clear threshold on which to base the decision whether someone is capable or incapable of work. It is clear from all the information—all the representations from organisations that represent disabled people throughout the country—that it is inappropriate to set a fixed threshold.
Incapacity is a continuum. One needs to judge the nature of the illness or the nature of the disability against the real world of work. It is incredible to suggest that the Government could apply that medical test—which is not before us—to that concept of own work and all work without explaining the way in which all work will operate in the current employment market.
We must demand that information be presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Reports on the way in which the incapacity benefit will work are crucial. We place clearly on record our total opposition to the Bill because, as all my hon. Friends have said, the reality of the Bill will not bite for at least 12 months. Then Conservative Members will come whining back to the House, as a result of their casework, and say, "We did not vote for this. We did not understand what would happen. We did not understand that the medical test would be applied in this way. We did not understand that there would be a reduction in the amount of benefit available under the new incapacity benefit compared with the previous invalidity benefit."
We must say clearly, through the amendment, that we are voting to oppose the cuts in benefit to disabled people, and to oppose the tightening of the regime on the medical test and applying the reality of people with disabilities to a situation in which at least 3 million people are unemployed. That is what we are voting for. Let no Conservative Members return to the House in future and pretend that they did not understand what they were voting for. This is the opportunity to make their intentions clear.

Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 299.

Division No. 155]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dewar, Donald


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H.


Alton, David
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Etherington, Bill


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bames, Harry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Faulds, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beggs, Roy
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Dr. Roger
Galbraith, Sam


Betts, Clive
Galloway, George


Blair, Tony
Gapes, Mike


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John


Boateng, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gordon, Mildred


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gould, Bryan


Burden, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hall, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harvey, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Ian
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





Keen, Alan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S.
Prescott, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Primarolo, Dawn


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wallace, James


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wilson, Brian


Olner, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Parry, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Pope, Greg





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Body, Sir Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bowden, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes






Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by' ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st' n)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mates, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spink, Dr Robert


Moate, Sir Roger
Spring, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pickles, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Speed, Sir Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Warcs)

Clause 2

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RATE

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 21, leave out "£42.70" and insert ""£43.45".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8 and No. 14.

Mr. Scott: The amendments deal with the way in which the rates of incapacity benefit and statutory sick pay set out in the Bill will be revised to take account of the genuine increases in benefit rates—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to chat, will they please do so outside the Chamber?

Mr. Scott: The amendments will ensure that the rates of benefit will be revised to take account of the general increases in benefited rates from this coming April and also in the April 1995 uprating. Amendments Nos.1 to 7 are straightforward; they simply replace rates of incapacity benefit set out in clause 2 to bring them into line with the new April 1994 rates of sickness and invalidity benefit.
Amendment No. 8 has two purposes. The first is that the amendment will provide for the middle rate of incapacity benefit to be increased, but only if the Secretary of State decides to uprate the higher rate of statutory sick pay before the commencement of the Act. Its second role is to provide for a further increase to the rates set out in clause 2 to take account of any increase in benefit rates that are required in accordance with the April 1995 uprating.
As hon. Members who followed the debates in Committee will be aware, from the introduction of incapacity benefit we are committed to increasing all the basic rates, age additions and dependency increases in line with the general uprating of benefits. That means that the middle rate of incapacity benefit will be uprated in the usual way from 1996 thereafter. I hope that the House will support the amendments.

Mr. Ingram: The Minister gave a very brief outline of what the Government propose to do. I do not know whether he wanted to appear as Father Christmas; perhaps it would have been better if he had put on the guise of one of the Greeks with the Trojan horse. We are not going to have a brief debate because the matters underlying the Minister's announcement are at the heart of some of the Bill's worst aspects. The announcement involves not only uprating, but those affected by the rates.
Throughout our discussions of the Bill, both here and in Committee, we said that the uprating, about which we have just been advised, and which we debated in detail in Committee, would be no less than an assault on people with disabilities. The essence of the Bill—as revealed through the rates that have been increased to take account of the recent uprating statement—involves cutting the amount paid to those with disabilities who are unable to work after April 1995.
The amendments alter only slightly the extent of the cut that those disabled people will face from April 1995. The Government amendments remind us of the analysis of the cuts that was made on Second Reading and explored in detail in Committee.
The Bill extends the short-term incapacity period, as it is classed, from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. That will mean that benefit entitlement will be delayed for a full year, and will result in a lower level of payment than is currently available through invalidity benefit. Often, the needs of a newly disabled person are greatest in the early stages. We discussed that in great detail in Committee, but unfortunately we were unable to convince the Ministers of the merits of our argument. We hoped that the upratings contained in the Government amendments would be much more substantial and would recognise the strengths and merits of the arguments advanced in Committee.
There is a concession to those with a terminal illness or a deteriorating or long-term sickness, but it does not extend to the short-term incapacity period, which has been increased from 28 to 52 weeks. To make someone with a teminal illness or a major deteriorating or long-term sickness wait 52 weeks before receiving the full benefit is nothing short of a disgrace.
While the amendments redefine the short-term incapacity period as 52 weeks, the new all-work test remains applicable at 28 weeks. That means that people who pass the test at 28 weeks will be regarded as incapable of all work, but will not be entitled to full benefit for a further 24 weeks. That delay in the long-term entitlement from 28 to 52 weeks means that the basic rate of benefit will be awarded at two levels and will not be paid at the full rate. No allowance for children and no full allowance for a non-working partner can be paid. No allowance will be based on the claimant's age.
It is worth while dealing in detail with what the Minister briefly set out earlier and to consider how each new rate compares with existing invalidity benefit. We should consider the impact of the changes proposed in the Government amendments on current invalidity benefit claimants.
Rather than being entitled to long-term benefit at 28 weeks, as is the present position, claimants will be paid a higher rate component of short-term benefit for 29 to 52 weeks. That means that less money will be paid as a higher rate short-term benefit, and at a lower rate than the long-term benefit. Further costs are to be made by non-payment of age additions until after 52 weeks, and then only under restricted conditions.
I should like to go back to the preceding debate so that Conservative Members at a later stage—either in our deliberations of the Bill or after the Bill is enacted—cannot say that they did not know what the effects of the measures would be. If they approve the Government's uprating measures, they will be accepting the cuts. If the Government had tabled different amendments that took account of the merits of the arguments advanced in Committee, they would have obviated the need for me to give the following facts for the benefit of the House, especially Conservative Members.
I propose to deal with each category of person who will be affected by the new rates and to compare what they receive under the invalidity benefit system with what they will receive after uprating to consider the loss implications. The greatest loss will be in the 29 to 52 weeks period. The losses will be substantial if the Government amendments are accepted.
A single person who is under 40 years of age receives at present £69·75 in invalidity benefit. Under the new short-term higher rate incapacity benefit, which is payable after 28 weeks for 24 weeks, the same individual with the same illness will receive £52·50 a week. That is a loss of £17·25 a week. Over the 24-week period, the loss amounts to £414. A single person under 50 years of age receives at present £65·20 in invalidity benefit. Under the new benefit rates, that person will receive £52·50, a loss of £12·70 per week and, over the 24-week period, a total loss of £304·80. A single man under 60 years of age and a single woman under 55 receive £61·40 in invalidity benefit. Under the new benefit rates, they will receive £52·50—a loss of £8·90 per week and a total loss of £213·60 over the 24-week period.
The extent of the loss for those with families is even greater. A married person under 40 with two children receives £125·05 in invalidity benefit. Under the new benefit rates, that person will receive £79·40—a loss of £45·65 per week and a total loss of £1,095·60 over the 24-week period.
7.30 pm
A married person under 40 with no children would receive £104·25 per week under the present system and £52·50 per week under the new benefit—a loss per week of £51·75 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,242.
At present, a married person under 50 with two children would receive invalidity benefit of £120·50 per week and £79·40 under the new benefit rates-a loss per week of £41·10 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £986·40.
A married person under 50 with no children would receive invalidity benefit of £99·70 and £52·50 under the proposed benefit rates—a loss per week of £47·20 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,132·80.
A married man under 60 and a married woman under 55 with two children would receive £116·70 in invalidity benefit. Under the new incapacity benefit rates they would receive £79·40—a loss per week of £37·30 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £895.20.
A married man under 60 and a married woman under 55 with no children would receive invalidity benefit of £95·90 and £52·50 under the new rates—a loss per week of £43·40 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,041·60.
Those are substantial sums, but I am putting all this information on record—and there is more to follow—so that Conservative Members who are not present to listen to the information may pick it up in the Lobby and change their minds. They may decide that they do not want to support the proposed changes, but even if they continue to support them, they may put additional pressure on sympathetic Ministers responsible for the Bill and ask them to put more pressure on the Treasury to bring about a different approach to the whole ethos of the measure.
The figures I have given do not illustrate how families will be affected. Those with more than two children will lose an additional £11 a week for each additional child. Over the 24-week period that adds up to a loss of £264. Someone under 40 who is married with three children will face a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,362·60.
Those are substantial losses for people who are going through the difficult adjustment to what is now termed incapacity for work and are having to live off much-reduced benefits. Clearly, it affects families worse than others, because of the impact of a small sum going into the family home. It creates great difficulties for parents trying to sustain their children on a weekly basis on a much-reduced sum of money.
While the major losses will be sustained within the 29 to 52-week period, there will also be losses from 52 weeks onwards, but there are two surprises in the information I am about to give.
A single person under 35, receiving invalidity benefit of £69·75, will continue to receive £69·75, so the loss for that individual is zero. Surprise number one is that we have actually found someone who will not lose under the proposed measures. Unfortunately, the trend does not continue for long, because a single person under 40 who would at present receive invalidity benefit of £69·75, will receive £63·70 under the new rates—a loss per week of £6·05.
A single person under 45 who would receive invalidity benefit of £65·20, will receive £63·70 under the new rates —a loss per week of £1·50. A single person under 50 who would receive invalidity benefit of £65·20, will receive £57·60 under the new rates—a loss per week of £7·60. A

single man under 60 and a single woman under 55 who would receive invalidity benefit of £61·40, will receive £57·60 under the new rates—a loss of £3·80 per week.
Hon. Members will want to know when the next big surprise is coming. It is in the very next piece of information and relates to a married person under 35 with two children, who under invalidity benefit would receive £125·05. Under the new rates that person will receive the same amount, so again there will be a loss of zero. It is miraculous that out of all the categories I have listed only two sustain no loss whatsoever.
I do not imagine that there will be much rejoicing even in those households. They will be saying, "If everyone else is losing, for how long will I continue not to lose?". How long will it be before the man from the Treasury knocks on the door of the Secretary of State for Social Security asking to see his secret little list and asking him what other categories of people can bear a cut in benefit?
It is worth while putting on record the other categories and the rates that will apply to them. A married person under 35 with no children, who would receive invalidity benefit of £104·25, will receive £69·75 under the new rates—a loss per week of £34·50.
A married person under 40 with two children, who would receive invalidity benefit of £125·05 a week, will receive £119 under the new rates—a loss per week of £6·05. A married person under 40 with no children who would receive at present £104·25, will receive £63·70 under the new rates—a loss per week of £40·55.
A married person under 45 with two children, who would receive £120·50 at present, will receive £119 under the new rates—a loss per week of £1·50. A married person under 45 with no children, who would receive £99·70 at present, will receive £63·70 under the new rates—a loss per week of £36.
A married person under 50 with two children, who would receive at present £120·50, will receive £112·90 under the new rates—a loss per week of £7·60. A married person under 50 with no children, who would receive at present £99·70 will receive £57·60 under the new rates —a loss per week of £42·10.
A married person under 60 with two children, who would receive at present £116·70 per week, will receive £112·90 under the new rates—a loss per week of £3·80. A married person under 60 with no children, who would receive at present £95·90 will receive £57·60 under the new rates—a loss per week of £38·30.
Certain assumptions are built into those calculations, but it is a reasonable assumption that all spouses referred to in the categories are under 60.
A range of swingeing cuts is implicit in what the Minister has announced tonight. It may well be that the answer to the argument might be that some people receive other benefits as a consequence. However, the Government's own estimates show that only 40 per cent. of claimants will be eligible for income support, thereby falling into the safety net. So a significant number of people will lose substantially as a result of the figures that we are being asked to consider.
I have dealt with the categories of people that fall ill in the period 29 to 52 weeks, and those who are on longer-term benefits after 52 weeks. It is no surprise that there will be a loss for people who fall in the cateogry of up to 28 weeks. That area will have two rates of basic benefit. For people falling sick while in work, the statutory sick pay will be £52·50 a week at current rates. Others,


such as the self-employed, will receive the same rate of sickness benefit of £43·45. No dependant's allowance will be payable unless the dependant is looking after children or is under 60.
The current rate for dependants is £26·90 a week. The potential loss during the first 28 weeks for certain categories amounts to £753·20 for someone with a dependant who would be entitled to an increase of benefit under the old rates.
I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, did not have the benefit of listening to these arguments in Committee. I am sure that you are finding the information riveting. It is not the most declaratory speech imaginable, but none the less it is important to get this information across and on the record. It would have been useful if the Minister had given an indication of the type of cuts that are implicit within the uprated benefits. Ministers have never really accepted what they are doing here. They have argued fast and furiously against all the arguments advanced.
The point has been made time and again, in Committee, on Second Reading and tonight, that while Members in the House may be interested in this, most of the information —probably all of it—is coming from groups who represent those who will be affected by these measures.
These are not scare tactics. I am not trying to say something that will not happen. I am not using points for arguments sake. These are straightforward facts about the reality of this measure and what the amendments relate to.
On top of that, we must take our minds back to the additional pension. It was stated during Second Reading and came up again in Committee, but a commitment was given by the Minister some time back. He said:
All the rights built up in the years up to and including the 1990–91 tax year will be preserved, whenever the claim for invalidity pension is made, however far in the future that may be. Moreover, such additional pension will continue to be subject to revaluation uprating in exactly the same way as at present"— [Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1115.]
We are not very far in the future and the Government are not announcing anything tonight to ensure that that commitment will be adhered to. That adds up to a substantial loss for a particular category of claimants.
Every category, group and individual who is affected by someone in the family or who is conditioned by a disability will lose out under the new incapacity benefit if they become incapable of work after April 1995. I am grateful that the Minister is nodding. I hope that at some stage during this part of consideration of the Bill he will stand up and admit the extent of the cuts.
We have talked extensively in previous debates about the global sums—savings of £550 million in the first year and gross savings of £1·4 billion. in year two. Those are great sums, but individuals and families will suffer as a consequence. They will not lose £1·4 billion, but they will lose a lot of important pound coins each week, which allow them to survive, keep them going, give them a bit of dignity and, if they have children, allow them to look after them with some measure of confidence. All that will go.
As I was considering the uprating figures, a particular phrase came to mind of my right hon. Friend the Member of Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). It was an extensive speech, but I shall take just one small part of it. In 1983, he said that he warned the people of Britain not to become sick, disabled under this Government. Those were prophetic words, because what we are now considering in this measure and in rates that I listed show what he meant by that. Those words are coming home with a vengeance to

those people who will become incapacitated for work after April 1995. Indeed, in the longer term, it may mean the same for those receiving invalidity benefit.
7.45 pm
We have asked the Minister before whether he is prepared to say that those currently receiving invalidity benefit will continue to receive those amounts uprated for ever more. It is unlikely that he will say that, but throughout the Bill's Committee stage, the Minister and his hon. Friends kept asking Labour Members what commitments a future Labour Government would give. We are not in government at the moment. The Minister is part of the Government. What commitments can he give for people in receipt of invalidity benefits? Will they always receive the same rates? Are there no plans to bring them into line with those who will receive the new incapacity benefit rates after April 1995? I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about that.
Having set out the details of what the new rates mean, it is appropriate to set out how we will react to them. It would be nice to vote against the Government—it is populist in some parts of politics to vote constantly against the Government—but that would be doing a major disservice to those who will receive the new benefits. Although they will receive major cuts as a consequence of these benefits, none the less it would be wrong for the Opposition to vote against what is proposed. Any small amount is to be welcomed, but it is a small amount on a much reduced amount. That is the main thrust of the criticism that I put to the Minister tonight.
We will not be calling an official vote on these amendments, because it is important that we get a bit more than was previously written down in the original Bill. All of the facts and the information needs careful examination and consideration. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends will want to elaborate and add to what I have said. That will all be on record for the future. When Conservative Members consider the matter in future, they cannot complain that they did not know.

Mr. Ted Lowlands: I draw the attention of the House to the potential problems that will arise in a community such as mine from the vivid and frightening account that my hon. Friend has just given of the potential and future cuts in invalidity benefit that will occur. I make no apology for returning to an aspect of the problem that I raised briefly on the money resolution after Second Reading—the impact that the changes that the Bill might foreshadow not only for individual families but collectively on the purchasing power of a community.
In that context, I draw the attention of the House and of Ministers in particular to the role that invalidity benefit has played in sustaining that purchasing power and to the impact that any future cuts of the kind envisaged and described so vividly by my hon. Friend will have on the future purchasing power of a community such as mine.
I draw the attention of Ministers to the context in which those changes can take place in a community such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. In 1981, 20,800 people were in employment in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil. Of those, 13,100 were men, 400 of whom were formerly part time. There were 7,700 women in work, of whom nearly 50 per cent.—3,200—were part-time. A decade later, in 1991, only 16,700 people, men and women, were working—
16,700 out of 60,000, in the area where the industrial revolution began. Of those 16,700, only 8,700 men were in work. Those figures take us back to the 1930s; indeed, in terms of the insured population, they are the equivalent of figures for the late 1930s. we should consider the cuts and changes introduced by the Bill in that context.
In communities such as mine, the employment base and the labour force have shrunk, and the number of people in work has not risen but fallen dramatically over the past decade. It is in that connection that we should consider the impact of any future changes in invalidity benefit on, for instance, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley and Rhymney.
Unfortunately, we cannot produce figures for the number of people receiving invalidity benefit on a borough or even a constituency basis. One must therefore make certain extrapolations. At present, 28,000 people in Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley and Rhymney are receiving invalidity benefit. According to a letter from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, the arrangements for the Merthyr Tydfil district are not coterminous with those relating to the Merthyr borough, where the number of claimants was 11,946. In Wales as a whole, more than 156,000 people are receiving invalidity benefit.
It is just possible that roughly as many people in the Merthyr borough now receive invalidity benefit as there are men in work. That is a frightening, horrific and wicked situation. Occasionally at Tory party conferences Ministers make speeches implying that we wallow in dependency —that we believe in the dependency culture revealed in the figures that I have quoted. That is nonsense. I do not want to depend on the state, and nor does Merthyr Tydfil. We know—and the Bill demonstrates—just how capricious Governments can be when it comes to sustaining and supporting people in need.
For a combination of reasons, we have been driven into a more dependent society in the past 10 or 15 years. As I have said, because so many people have fallen ill in work and had to stop working, the number of people receiving invalidity benefit is probably nearly as great as the number of men in employment. I am sure that the Government do not welcome that position any more than we do.
Nevertheless, the benefit has been vital. There is one major difference between the recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s and the recessions that hit our area in the 1930s. Up to a point, purchasing power has been sustained in communities such as ours; we have not experienced the absolute deprivation that was so characteristic of south Wales mining communities such as the one that I come from and now represent. The difference lies in the contributory benefits created by a post-war generation who experienced regular employment for the first time and who established a series of rights deriving from that experience, including sickness and invalidity benefits.
That has been an extremely important factor in sustaining the purchasing power of the community. While the number of people in employment has shrunk, invalidity and other contributory benefits have developed for the reasons that I have given. What will happen if we cannot rapidly reverse the decline in employment, and if the cuts described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) are introduced in the next year or two? What will happen to those who have accrued rights to invalidity benefit as a result of their employment over the past 10, 15

or 20 years and who, having fallen ill and requiring the prop of that benefit, receive a much reduced amount? The result must involve a potential reduction in the purchasing power of communities such as Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and Cynon Valley.
I ask the Minister, as I did when we discussed the money motion, to consider the ripple effect of the changes made by the Bill. On the money motion, I mentioned the number of people who would receive no benefit of any kind. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, future beneficiaries will receive much less than those who receive invalidity benefit now.
There is another aspect. Can hon. Members imagine the envies and jealousies that will grow up between neighbours in every street in close-knit communities of the kind that I represent? There will be two distinct classes of invalidity beneficiary: those receiving existing rates, and those who will receive the much lower rates. I do not know what kind of society the Minister represents, but people compare such rates in the club or on the doorstep. Word gets around. As I listened to my hon. Friend, I envisaged the pattern of my surgery work following April 1995. We have had the Child Support Agency this year; next year, it will be invalidity benefit. At least hon. Members will not be short of work, at least in our surgeries. The difference between beneficiaries will not be merely marginal.
As I said when I spoke on the money motion, the changes made by the Bill will affect not only the individuals and families of the future who may depend on invalidity benefit, but the purchasing power and therefore the economic health of societies such as ours in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

Mr. Jamie Cann: I, too, welcome the uprating—albeit small—in the amendment. I must add, however, that I see it in the context of what has passed before my wondering eyes during the past few weeks, in my first Standing Committee. What has happened to a scheme that will be very important to hundreds of thousands of people has been largely unreported by the press and, judging by the appearance of the Press Gallery, it will be largely unreported today.
Cut after cut has been made in the existing invalidity benefit scheme, and time periods have been extended to save money. When we ask for reasons, we are confronted by the smokescreen erected by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—but particularly by the Prime Minister. In June last year, he said that it beggared belief that the number of people receiving invalidity benefit could have increased from 700,000 to 1·5 million over, I think, five years. The implication was that many recipients of such benefit did not really deserve it.
There is no evidence to support that view, especially in the five reports commissioned by the Department of Social Security. According to the most authoritative report that I have seen—from the Policy Studies Institute—29 per cent. of the extra cases have been people of pensionable age, drawing the benefit instead of pension for tax reasons, 16 per cent. results from the increase in the number of women in the labour market, 13 per cent. result from the gradual increase in the number of disabled people in the relevant age groups—another demographic factor—and only 42 per cent. relate to a genuine growth in the rate of claims in a stable population of disabled people.
We must ask ourselves why. Is it because more people are receiving sick notes who should not be, or is it because


people on invalidity benefit are finding it increasingly difficult to get back into the job market? Everyone whom I have read on the subject has found that it is the latter, not the former.
8 pm
Why are we introducing the new medical test that will apply to new applicants? There is no logic to it, because it does not apply to previous applicants. The Government apparently believe that half of them are scroungers but they will continue to get invalidity benefit at the previous rate, whereas people who pass a new and more difficult test will receive less. What equity or fairness is there in that? It is nonsense and it is a smokescreen.
The truth is that the Bill is about reducing public expenditure to pay for the Government's mistakes. It will gross the Government £550 million in the next financial year starting in April 1995 and £1,450,000 in 1996–97. It is not only I who say that. Every voluntary organisation that deals with invalidity benefit and disabled people says that. It is best encapsulated in a brief quotation from Ann Robinson, the chief executive of the Spastics Society. She said:
The Government claims to be scrapping Invalidity Benefit on the basis that many people who can work are claiming it, but we've yet to see any evidence of this. This legislation is about reducing public expenditure, not ensuring the right benefits reach the right people. Once again, disabled people seem to be getting a rough deal as a result of Government cost-cutting. This new benefit will not meet the needs of disabled people who cannot work.
I know it, the House knows it, the voluntary organisations know it and, very soon, the country will know it.

Mr. Mudie: It is a pity that the Chamber, like the Standing Committee, is devoid of Government Back Benchers as they are the people who will enable the measure to be passed and put into effect. It is a shame that the Benches are empty now but at 10 pm the Lobbies will be full and the measure will be passed.
The devastating figures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) show the effect of the measure on ordinary families in which the breadwinner has the misfortune to fall ill, have an accident or suffer from long-term sickness. The figures are also devastating to the Government's integrity.
Let us remember the origins of the Bill. They are similar to those of the Child Support Agency, which has been mentioned so often. That agency was formed on the basis of the then Prime Minister deciding in an off-the-cuff speech that we should chase errant fathers, thus pushing hard-working people into bankruptcy. The situation now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are discussing Government amendment No. 1, which does not refer to the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Mudie: I had just finished with the Child Support Agency because I realised that you would quickly decide, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment did not relate to it. However, this measure is similar, especially as we are dealing with amendments to the uprating of benefits.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) said, it was the present Prime Minister who said that it beggared belief that the number of those in receipt of invalidity benefit had jumped from 600,000 to 1·4 million in the space of 10 or 12 years. The Prime Minister's remarks gave the impression that a number of people in a

healthy nation—as the Prime Minister put it—were wrongly in receipt of the benefit. That may be so; if it is, it should be considered and legislated on. No one would complain about that.
However, in the first five paragraphs of his Second Reading speech, trying to sell this ugly, nasty and mean measure to his Back Benchers and to the House, the Secretary of State said that the review of the social security system was intended to
safeguard the position of the most vulnerable".
That is important because it establishes the fact that the Secretary of State understands that those in receipt of long-term benefit are the most vulnerable. However, still within the first five paragraphs of his speech, he said that the
sums devoted to sickness benefits
should be
properly focused on those who are genuinely too unwell to work".
"Focused" and "genuinely"—there will be no difference between the two sides of the House about the use of the words. Any money available should, in the Secretary of State's words, be focused on those who are genuinely vulnerable and genuinely unwell.
I dare not ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you cannot participate in the debate, but I wonder what picture is forming in your mind. Someone listening, perhaps naively, to the Secretary of State would believe that some people were receiving money unfairly and not according to the rules so they were to be weeded out and benefit focused on genuine cases.
In the same part of his speech, the Secretary of State also said:
The Bill is not an attack on the sick and disabled; it is the very reverse. It is designed to protect their benefit against those who abuse it. As a result, it will make their benefits sustainable despite the other pressures on the social security system."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 35.]
If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall emphasise the key notion, which is that the available money should be devoted to, and focused on, the vulnerable and genuinely unwell, that their benefit should be protected so—this is most important in terms of the amendments—that their benefits are sustained. That presents a picture of weeding out those who wrongly receive benefit but protecting the genuine.
I challenge the Minister not to acknowledge that a person who is long-term disabled and who will be eligible for incapacity benefit under the operation of this legislation in 1995 will not be worse off in benefit terms than a person receiving benefit before the operation of the legislation in 1995. In other words, there will be two types of disabled people.
We accepted a given level of benefit for some people before 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride spelt out the amounts but I am not sure whether you were in the Chamber at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I believe that Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair. My hon. Friend said that a married man under 40 with two children in the last six months of his first year of benefit loses £1,095. Is that protecting and sustaining the most vulnerable?
I see that the Government Whip is raising his eyebrows, but I am quoting the Secretary of State. It was on that basis that the Bill was sold to the House. Does it sound as if the


Secretary of State is protecting and sustaining the most vulnerable? A married man of 50 with no children will lose £1,132 if he has been ill for more than six months—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty in discovering to which amendment the hon. Gentleman's figures relate; perhaps he can advise me.

Mr. Mudie: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am nearing the end of my remarks so I hope that you will not be unduly worried. The fact is that my comments are in order. The amendments deal with the uprating of benefits. The figures were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and were unchallenged by Madam Deputy Speaker because they were a comparison of invalidity benefit currently paid to an individual and what will happen when the Bill becomes an Act.
You will now see the relevance of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ministers may say that they will sustain the most vulnerable, but the figures expressed by my hon. Friend show that Ministers will do nothing of the sort. The Bill is not an attack on wasters or on abusers. It is a deliberate attack on the most vulnerable.
As we said in Committee, our treatment of those who have the misfortune to be off work due to illness for a long period of time is a mark of our society. That illness affects them physically and financially and it affects their family. My hon. Friend has done a service to those people. The only trouble is that Conservative Members, who are not in the Chamber, will troop through the Lobby and will vote for those rates of benefit.
As has been said, in a couple of years' time, when the disabled and the ill are in our surgeries, they will say that they do not know how the legislation was passed. They have no excuse not to know because the rates have been spelled out. The grand idea is that the Bill attacks abusers, but it has been shown for what it is—a nasty, mean measure that attacks the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr. Scott: In drawing this short debate to a conclusion, I acknowledge that it was right and fair of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) to set out in detail the impact of the changes to provision for incapacity benefit which the Government are making through the Bill. I make no complaint about that. It put the Bill in an acutely personal light and it is right that we should all be aware of that impact. Obviously, those of us who were responsible for drawing up the new proposals were aware of that. The hon. Gentleman has brought it to a wider audience, and I cannot complain.
When we came to consider the scope and the role for incapacity benefit as opposed to invalidity benefit, which will be removed in 1995 except for the existing caseload, it was also right to consider the level of benefit, especially the add-on bits which formed parts of invalidity benefit over the years. In part at least we carry the sentiments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) with us, because the main factor in the reduction in invalidity benefit for new entrants after April 1995 will be the absence of additional pension. The House will remember only too well the remarks of the hon. Member for Garscadden in that debate when he acknowledged, at least in passing—I do not suggest that it was a considered view on that benefit—that additional pension was perhaps an anomaly in the present-day social security system.
I believe that that is an anomaly because additional pension was introduced at a time when the ability of people to make other provision for their future was much less common than it is today. A substantial percentage of those in receipt of invalidity benefit today have other resources, in savings or in income from their previous employment. Additional pension in those circumstances had become an anomaly. Many others will have other resources available to them.
Although everybody who was in Committee is aware of the fact, it is worth emphasising that there will be no loss to the existing beneficiaries at the point of change for so long as they continue to qualify for the benefit. I have made it clear before, but I reiterate it if the hon. Member for East Kilbride would like me to, that it is the intention to continue to uprate that entitlement in the usual way in subsequent years.
8.15 pm
Let me turn to the basic principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for East Kilbride spoke only from the Front Bench and therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to make a point that I know was made frequently in Committee. I do not want of tease him too much about it, but, in criticising our efforts and intention to constrain the growth of the social security system, by constraining invalidity benefit in particular, by altering its scope, by introducing the objective medical test and by taking away some of the add-ons to the existing benefit, is he making a commitment to restore the present situation in future years if there should ever be again a Labour Government?
The Government believe that we have a clear duty to contain the growth in spending on sickness benefits and to introduce an affordable system which focuses benefits on those most in need. Our proposals for restructuring will provide a basic income for all those who cannot work and they will focus resources on the genuinely long-term sick. That is the right way to tackle the situation, as long as we ensure that no one suffers a reduction in benefit when the new proposals are introduced. The Government are determined to make provision affordable in that area.
Before I sit down, I wish to deal with a point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride on the terminally ill. As he knows, the terminally and seriously ill will receive benefit for the first 52 weeks. Those receiving the lower rate of short-term benefit will receive a significant increase after 28 weeks; and incapacity benefit, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not intended to meet the extra costs of the terminally ill or severely disabled. Disability living allowance is available to help with extra care need, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the care component is payable immediately to the terminally ill. We have set out what I think are satisfactory and well-regarded arrangements to ensure that applicants are put on a fast track.
I said in Committee that I would consider the arguments for bringing forward the longer-term rates of benefit. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, we are considering the points that were made and we hope to reach conclusions on them in the near future. Obviously we shall ensure that everyone is informed as and when we reach those conclusions.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reiterated, perhaps at slightly greater length, the points that he made in Committee. I understand the economic impact on his constituency. I make two points in response to his comments. In the first instance, all


the existing caseload will continue to be entitled to their existing benefit, uprated as usual, so that there should be no immediate impact on purchasing power in his constituency. It is perfectly proper for him, as a constituency Member of Parliament, to put forward the impact of any Government policy on his constituency's economic prospects, but it is not the purpose of invalidity or of future incapacity benefit to underwrite, as it were, the prosperity of all those living in that area.
I made it clear when I responded to the hon. Gentleman's questions on the money resolution that I understand the role that invalidity benefit played at a difficult time in Merthyr Tydfil, in other parts of Wales and elsewhere. However, I do not believe that, in the long run, that is the purpose of invalidity benefit.

Mr. Rowlands: A little earlier, the right hon. Gentleman rested his case for the change on the ground that the benefits were created when people could not create occupational benefit rights. The point that I was trying to make, further to those on the money resolution, was that, as a result of the shrinking number of people in employment in our area, we shall not have a new generation creating those rights. At the same time, the available benefit will reduce for those who are entitled to it. It worries me that we are being driven backward into more of a dependency culture than ever before.

Mr. Scott: I do not wish to stray too wide of the debate, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take all sorts of opportunities to impress upon other parts of the Government the contribution that they can make to the economic health of his area. I must also emphasise the fact that, although existing beneficiaries may lose entitlement under what will in future be incapacity beneift—in essence, it will be the continuation of their invalidity benefit after 1995—if they come off benefit, they may be able to get back into work or they may qualify for other benefits. Nobody will be left with no resources whatever.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about the problems that can arise, especially in small, tight-knit communities, when people in similar circumstances are on two different rates of benefit. However, to avoid that, unless we were to leave the whole system intact for ever —that would not be realistic, sensible or prudent—we should have had to take their entitlement away from existing beneficiaries and reduce their benefit to the level of incapacity benefit that was being introduced. In recent years that has been virtually unheard of, because when there are changes in social security provision we have always endeavoured to ensure that people's existing entitlement is not reduced at the point of change, even though those who become entitled in future will have a lower entitlement.
The amendments provide an uprating for the range of benefits now and make provision for benefits to be upgraded again in April 1995. I understand that Opposition Members may feel that the benefits are inadequate, but I welcome their undertaking not to vote against the amendments.

Mr. Ingram: We started out not knowing whether this would be a lengthy debate. The Minister said that it would be short, but I suspect that it has probably grown longer than he expected when he gave his one-minute introduction to the amendments.
The debate has been useful because it has drawn out much of the principle underlying the Bill, and we shall pick up the different messages that the Minister put out about that. He made a sterling defence of many aspects of the Bill, but some of us can read between the lines and see some of the other approaches that he might have liked to be used in defence of disabled people.
No one denies that it is the role of Government constantly to examine the way in which benefits are paid and the overall budget for social security provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) set out the Opposition's position on that clearly on Second Reading. The Minister tried to tease me a little by asking whether what we had said amounted to a commitment on my part to restore the benefit. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to be teased in that way. That is no part of the purpose of the debate or of our approach to the Bill.
We have exposed the full effects of the measure. Indeed, the debate has brought them into sharp focus. The Minister recognised that it had served that purpose, and in doing so it has served the nation well, because now people will know what is coming next year and beyond.
The Minister gave me the assurance that I sought on the overall question of maintaining the uprating and the present level of invalidity benefit. I accept that assurance in the spirit in which it was given, but others may tell me that the Minister made the same commitment on additional pensions. I hope that in two or three years' time we shall not be back with the same criticism on invalidity benefit as we have had to make on additional pensions.
The Minister is right to say that it is not our intention to vote against the amendments, because they give a little more money than before, although still a lot less than current levels of invalidity benefit. For that reason, it would be wrong for us to vote against the amendments, and we accordingly accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 25, leave out '£56·10' and insert ' £57·60 '.

No. 3, in page 4, line 10, leave out '£26·40' and insert '£26·90'.

No. 4, in page 4, line 12, leave out '£10·95' and insert '£11·00'.

No. 5, in page 4, line 12, leave out '£32·30' and insert '£33·10'.

No. 6, in page 4, line 14, leave out '£10·95' and insert '£11·00'.

No. 7, in page 4, line 14, leave out '£33·70' and insert '£34·50'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 14, at end add—
'(7) Any order under section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (up-rating orders) made by the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section shall include provision—

(a) making such increase (if any) in the sum specified in the provision inserted by subsection (2) above as the amount of short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate as is necessary to make that sum equal to the higher rate or, if there is only one such rate, to the rate of statutory sick pay payable after the order comes into force; and
(b) making such increases in the other sums specified in the provisions inserted by subsections (2) and (6) above in Schedule 4 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as would have been required if the provisions in question had been in force at all material times.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Clause 4

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION TO INCAPACITY BENEFIT

Mr. Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (11) and insert
'(11) For the period of three years from Royal Assent a statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(12) A statutory instrument—

(a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations made under this section, and
(b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10 to 13.

Mr. Burt: These amendments relate to the regulation-making powers. Members on the Standing Committee will recall that during discussions on clause 4 a commitment was given to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) to look again at the period for which those regulation-making powers would be subject to affirmative resolution. It was suggested at that time that a period of three years might be more appropriate.
New clause 1, which we dealt with earlier, introduced the three-year period for regulations covering the transition to the new test of incapacity. Amendment No. 9 now gives effect to that for regulations made under clause 4. New subsection (11) will ensure that the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution for three years from the date of Royal Assent. Additionally, new subsection (12) provides that where the regulations under clause 4 are contained in a statutory instrument that is not subject to affirmative resolution, negative resolution will apply—that is, after the three-year period. That was omitted during the original drafting of the clause.
Hon. Members may ask why we have decided on a period of three years. Why not, for example, make regulations always subject to the affirmative procedure? [Interruption.] Indeed, I hear that question spilling from the lips of Opposition Members.
We recognise that there will be a great deal of interest in the regulations made under the Bill. They are likely to be complex—the very reason for enshrining such matters in secondary legislation—and modifications may need to be made to deal with problems that emerge. In the light of that interest we think it right that the amending regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Eventually the new system will settle down—three years is a reasonable estimate for the transitional period —and, I hope, will find acceptance on all sides. From time to time there may need to be small sets of amending regulations dealing with what we expect to be relatively minor matters. We do not think that, given a choice, the House would want to debate these. There would, however, have to be a debate if the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure. If we place amendment under negative procedure after three years, the House will have a choice whether the issues are important enough to merit a full debate.
In addition to extending the period for application of affirmative resolution to the transitional regulations, I have tabled amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to do the same with the regulations covering the test of incapacity. Because of their complexity, it is quite possible that we shall not get the regulations right first time and that amendments will be required both before commencement of the Act and in the early days of operating the new test. The regulations will now be subject to affirmative resolution for the period of three years from the date of Royal Assent.
Amendment No. 12 corrects an omission in the current draft of the Bill. Subsection ((3) of clause 6 lists all the regulation-making powers included in clauses 5 and 6 that are to be subject to affirmative resolution. However, subsection (7) of new section 171A has been excluded from the list. The amendment corrects that situation.
Amendment No. 13 clarifies the reference to new section 171D. Subsection (2) of the new section merely sets out a particular case of the power given by subsection (1).
The amendments are largely technical and give effect to a more sensible treatment of the regulation-making powers. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Bradley: I welcome the fact that the Government have used the affirmative resolution procedure for the regulations, as promised in Committee. I am especially pleased that the Minister spotted the omission of subsection (7). We would have tabled an amendment to that effect ourselves if the Government had not done so.

Mr. Burt: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman certainly would have done.

Mr. Bradley: However, we must place on the record yet again our opposition to the way in which the legislation is being dealt with by regulation. I shall not rehearse the arguments on that subject, but in a sense the Government have made the case for us. The Minister said that the regulations would be complex and that the Government do not expect to get them right, but expect to have to amend them. What a way to introduce legislation. They admit that they do not know what they are doing; yet they legislate by regulation which we cannot amend and to which we can only vote yes or no even if we know that the Government have got it wrong. That is an extraordinary procedure to adopt and the Government have condemned themselves out of the Minister's own mouth.
However, we welcome the fact that a three-year period will apply to the regulations. All my hon. Friends will welcome that, because, unless the Government change the law on elections, three years should take us through until after the next general election, when we shall have the pleasure of introducing sensible regulations and legislation to deal with the real needs of disabled people in this country.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

TEST OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 44, at end insert
'but any such regulations shall take into account that it is in the public interest for disabled persons to make available their special knowledge through voluntary work and through appointment to relevant bodies and committees.'
We feel that this amendment is very important. We hope that the Government will treat it seriously. Throughout proceedings on the Bill, they have treated many of our arguments in a genuinely serious way and we ask that this amendment be given the same balanced approach. We also ask that it be judged not merely on its cost implications —I suspect that the overall cost of implementing the amendment will be small in terms of the cost of the overall Bill. I hope that we will not get into a cost implication argument.
The amendment simply calls on the Government to provide in regulation a means by which people in receipt of incapacity benefit—the new benefit—or the existing invalidity benefit will be allowed to do voluntary work or work in a user body or committee without fear of their entitlement to benefit being affected. The Bill as it stands already provides an exemption for local authority councillors. Their work as elected representatives will not debar them from entitlement to invalidity benefit or the new incapacity benefit.
That principle must be right because to do otherwise would undermine the fundamental democratic right that disabled people should not be debarred from fully participating in local authorities on the ground of cost. I hope that that is one right that will never be dispatched to the dustbin of history by the Government but will be constantly protected and supported by them.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary made a further concession—that the disregard that will apply to members of disability appeals tribunals will be extended to members of the advisory board which deals with the disability living allowance. That concession is welcome. However, it does not go far enough, and that is why we have tabled this amendment. It is right to extend that concession, but why will the Government not go one step further—we argue that it is a small step further—and concede a similar disregard for those people with disabilities who carry out such useful voluntary work on a range of committees and bodies, which benefit from the input of a disabled person?
We can all give examples of organisations, bodies and committees which would benefit greatly from the input of a disabled person. Disabled persons should be able to serve on any committee as of right but there are specific bodies, organisations and committees which would benefit greatly from the input of a disabled person because they understand the problems associated with not only their own disability but disabilities in general.
Clearly, bodies such as school governing bodies, community health councils and the boards of voluntary organisations which have been assisting Labour Members to understand the underlying importance and effect of this Bill would benefit from having disabled people serving on them and giving advice in that specific way. That would cover the whole breadth of voluntary organisations.
As I said, many boards, committees and groups would benefit from having disabled people serving on them. Of course, the argument will be that they should be debarred by virtue of the fact that they will lose their benefit.
By allowing the disregard for those serving on the DLA advisory board, the Government have partly accepted that argument. However, they do not go far enough—they do not take the logic of the argument and extend it further. If it is appropriate to allow the disregard for those serving on the DLA advisory board, why is it not appropriate for those serving on the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council?
That question was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). It was interesting to see the Minister's response. He said:
We have made a concession tonight. It is a little hurtful for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should go further. There is an end point and one can only go so far."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 February 1993; c. 364.]
The concession did not go very far at all. I do not know why the Minister was hurt by our questions, other than the fact that he accepted and understood the point that we were making and the need for the concession to be extended. The end point has been reached much too quickly. It is not that we wanted it to be reached in the way that it was in Committee but our arguments were dismissed. I am sorry that we hurt the Under-Secretary's feelings; however, it was not our intention to bother about his feelings but to have our argument accepted by the Government.
We must examine the existing legislation which deals with certain aspects of the principle of those with disabilities serving on various committees. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 lists a number of bodies on which it is desirable to have someone who has a knowledge of disability or who is disabled. These include the housing advisory committees, the social security advisory committee, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Transport Users Consultative Committee and other relevant advisory committees which deal with the range of utilities and other bodies. The 1970 Act is reinforced by the Disabled Persons Act 1986 which set out the need to include the experiences of people with disabilities on councils, committees and other bodies.
Why should we ignore the purposes of those Acts of Parliament? The Acts were laid down after careful debate and consideration in the House. There was a genuine recognition that disabled people needed much more positive discrimination and much more support in coming into the wider community, without feeling in any way that they would be debarred or suffer as a consequence.
That is why I ask the Government why they will not go further with the concession that they made in Committee about those who serve on the DLA advisory board. Why not take the concession a step further? If it is on the basis of cost, let us be told that. If it is not on that basis, where is the principle?
Why will the Government not accept that there is a lot to be gained not only by disabled people but all of us for disabled people to serve on these important advisory councils and committees which advise the House, local authorities and a range of other bodies? Clearly, to go that little step further would be a great boost to disabled people who want to serve and who do not want to operate under the fear that they may lose invalidity entitlement by serving on such bodies.
In tabling this amendment, we recognise that the Government intend to introduce a new provision to allow incapacity benefit claimants to engage in up to 16 hours voluntary work a week. That was said by the Secretary of State on Second Reading and reiterated in Committee. Clearly, that provision will be welcome. However, the Government have not said that the concession will apply to existing invalidity benefit recipients—those who are in receipt of benefit at present and those who will be eligible for invalidity benefit before April 1995.
Once again, that raises the question why the Government, having gone so far, will not go that little step further. If it is on the basis of cost, let us hear the cost arguments. If it is because of some other underlying principle, let us hear it. The House should debate why the Government have no intention of conceding that in relation to the areas in which they have made a concession, and taken it a little step further.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has set out the argument well in a briefing document which I understand has been given to all hon. Members. It would be useful to set out the background that was related in the document. NACAB says that it and other agencies which depend on volunteers, such as the Volunteer Centre UK, the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux, Mencap, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and Arthritis Care, are experiencing problems with people who are claiming invalidity benefit and who wish to become volunteers.
We know that working as a volunteer is only permitted at present if the work is considered to be therapeutic, and that is defined as medically beneficial to the claimant. However, NACAB has pointed out that many claimants suffer from medical conditions where their work as a volunteer is not medically beneficial, but neither is it harmful. Clearly, undertaking voluntary work may encourage people back into a normal work environment. It may give them confidence in themselves, and may encourage them to seek full-time employment. It gives them a sense of dignity, and an awareness of what they can and cannot do in a normal work environment. By working as a volunteer, they may be encouraged back into work; assuming that work is available to them.
NACAB points out that, in its experience, the current rule means that recipients of invalidity benefit are reluctant to become volunteers and that those who are already volunteers are giving it up as they fear that it will affect their entitlement to benefit. It has given a couple of examples, and it is worth putting them on record so that we understand the debate in relation to the amendment.
NACAB cites a case in the west midlands where a volunteer was asked to attend an interview with the Benefits Agency about his medical condition. That individual suffers from osteoarthritis, and clearly had some days when he had great difficulty walking. The man had previously been in industry but had to give up because of his health. He fears that he is to lose his benefit.
Another example—again from the west midlands—is that of a volunteer who received a request to return her invalidity benefit book to the Benefits Agency because of her work at a NACAB office in the west midlands. She had previously contacted the Benefits Agency to confirm that she could do such voluntary work, and she had obtained a

note from her doctor which stated that it was therapeutic. The Benefits Agency did not even question her first, and her benefit was subsequently reinstated. However, she suffered two weeks of distress as she clearly thought that she was to lose her invalidity benefit.
In a previous debate on the rates of benefit, we set out the level at which the rates are being paid at the moment under invalidity benefit and the rates which are to be paid. Those are not princely sums, and they do not make people feel like millionaires. They are not walking around with pound notes coming out of their pockets, but when someone feels that he is to lose benefit, it causes him great worry.
That is the underlying import and purpose of the amendment. It is important, and I am sure that the Minister will genuinely respond to it, but we need a clear statement tonight from the Government that nobody need fear losing their entitlement to invalidity benefit, or incapacity benefit, by carrying out voluntary work. Many disabled people benefit from their work in the voluntary sector, and the voluntary sector also derives extensive benefits. It is not just a case of input from the person with the disability. Everyone else benefits greatly from working with disabled people.
Those areas have the benefit of the disabled volunteer in terms of the valuable input which those people can make to an understanding of the wide range of issues dealt with in advisory groups and committees. Those people make major contributions, and it simply cannot be right that they have any fear hanging over them. That fear, of course, denies the rest of the community the invaluable input of an important group of our citizens.
By accepting the amendment, the Government will send out a clear message in advance of the debate which is to take place in the House on Friday. It will be another step forward for disabled people, and they will benefit from knowing that they are to be welcomed into the voluntary sector. That would give them confidence and the understanding of their fellow workers that they are to be welcomed into the work place. It would give them an understanding that there is a future for them.
8.45 pm
The amendment deals with such issues, and tries to set out the way forward. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that we will hear tonight whether they are prepared to have it debated elsewhere, and to allow it to be reconsidered during the final stages of the Bill. I appreciate that Ministers are reluctant to accept amendments tabled by the Opposition but, if they are not prepared to accept it, they should at least give a message that they are prepared to accept the principle underlying it.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I welcome the Government's decision on the social security uprating that volunteers on incapacity benefit will be able to do up to 16 hours of voluntary work a week without losing their benefit. I speak personally on the matter, and on behalf of the all-party parliamentary panel on charities.
There is no question that people have been deterred by the rules of the benefit system, which effectively discourage them from undertaking voluntary work. I will mention one instance from a report sent to the hon. Members by the Cleveland council for voluntary service. A volunteer called Anne says:


I have had serious problems with my health and confidence. I went to Middlesbrough Volunteer Bureau because I wanted to do something that would help my confidence. I got involved with an organisation which takes aid to children in a Romanian orphanage. I really wanted to go to Romania myself to see what my fundraising had achieved. I was told that if I went my benefit would be suspended while I was away. I promised that I would take a mobile phone so that I could be contacted if a job came up but the benefit office still would not let me go and pay my benefits.
Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride, I hope that the Government may find it possible to bring in the new concession earlier so that it applies to recipients of invalidity benefit as well as incapacity benefit. That would be a graceful and appropriate feature of the Government's new initiative, "Make a Difference", to encourage volunteering. I think that it can only have been an oversight that it was not announced when the initiative was launched last week.
I know that an explanation was given in another place that it would be impractical to do so because the concession would depend upon the operation of the new objective test, but I do not understand why that should be so. I hope that the additional change will be made.
Clear advice should be given at all events, to the Benefits Agency medical service to disregard voluntary work. It must be clear to all concerned that there can be no presumption that someone who undertakes those hours of voluntary work is fit for other work on account of that. There is a qualitative difference between voluntary work and paid employment. Voluntary work can be much more varied and flexible than paid employment is likely to be. The psychological frame of mind associated with voluntary work is different because there is always the feeling that if the stress and strain becomes too great, it is possible for the volunteer to withdraw.
Nor should we insist that voluntary work must be "therapeutic", although I believe that it is—in almost every case such work enhances the well-being of the person who undertakes it.
As has been argued, we should extend the exemptions. I welcome the extension to include people who undertake voluntary work as councillors, members of disability appeal tribunals and members of the disability living allowance advisory board, but I want the concessions to go much further and to cover the whole range of public service committees and organisations, which have been substantially extended, as we know. As long ago as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the desirability of disabled people serving on such committees was stated, but we are a quarter of a century on and we need to make better progress.
The deregulation task force has a sub-group on volunteers and benefits. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will want to listen carefully to what it has to say, perhaps shortly.
Charitable and voluntary activity benefits the giver and the receiver. Like the unemployed, retired people and many others, the disabled are able to give something to society in that way and to gain new skills and fulfilment. The bonds of our society are strengthened in the process. Voluntary work by the disabled is not only of direct and immediate value to society but, by enhancing their skills, morale and health, should be seen as an investment.
My right hon. Friend the Minister may tell us, however, that a cost problem is associated with bringing the

concession forward. I very much hope that if that is the problem, he will share it with us and explain the cost-benefit analysis that his Department has made.
A year ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
We must do more to recognise, support and encourage the habit of volunteering, which cements together our society and is one of the great glories of our lives.
I agree.

Ms Rachel Squire: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), as I entirely agree with his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity to follow the many excellent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).
I sincerely hope that there will be no opposition to amendment No. 23 and that the Minister will feel able to support it. Clearly, it is in the public interest that disabled people should be able to give us all the benefit of their experience and abilities.
Clause 6 takes into account that a person's incapacity for work should not prevent him from making a valuable contribution to the community as an elected representative or a councillor. All hon. Members present must know of people who are suffering from chronic illness or disability, but who serve their community as elected representatives and in many other capacities.
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, who are unfortunately notable by their absence from the Conservative Benches, may recall that I quoted in support of my argument a senior Member of Parliament asking the Government to consider such an amendment. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon quoted the Prime Minister, and I have here a press release issued in 1987 by the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, who subsequently became the Prime Minister, as hon. Members know. At that time he said
Experience shows that people with long-term sickness or disability can give valuable services as councillors even though they cannot undertake normal employment. It would be wrong if they were deterred by the rules of the benefit system from contributing to local democracy as elected representatives.
I certainly hope that the Prime Minister will recognise that that is what the amendment is about. It recognises the valuable contribution that people can make through voluntary work and appointment to serve on public bodies. That involvement and that contribution should not make someone fear that he will lose his benefit because he will be judged fully capable of paid employment.
All hon. Members have had considerable dealings with voluntary groups and community organisations in their constituencies. I am sure that hon. Members may have referred constituents with problems to the relevant voluntary group and community organisation for their support and expertise. There is no doubt in my mind that groups that deal with cancer, arthritis, heart disease and so forth can be an instant source of support. We should recognise the contribution made by volunteers who join such groups.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride has produced many valuable arguments. For example, he welcomed the Minister's announcement that volunteers who receive incapacity benefit will be able to do voluntary work for up to 16 hours per week, but said that we want that concession to be introduced as soon as possible, so that


it can apply to recipients of the existing invalidity benefit. My hon. Friend also made many splendid remarks about the range of organisations to which volunteers may contribute and the essential role that disabled people can play by advising certain committees and by being consulted in fulfilment of the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride also mentioned the fact that disabled people who wish to be volunteers fear that they will lose their benefit by doing such voluntary work. He quoted some examples that were cited by citizens advice bureaux. Once again I remind the Minister that two people may well be able to get out of a chair, sit down again, perhaps walk 50 yards, use their hands and carry out what we regard as the other normal physical functions, but that there may be vast differences in the time, effort and discomfort involved. A person with chronic arthritis may need three or more attempts just to get out of a chair, whereas somebody like me can get up in 10 seconds flat without any difficulty. This distinction must be recognised when we are dealing with the contribution that people can make as volunteers, as opposed to paid employees.
I have mentioned the public's interest in the Government's acceptance of this amendment, but there is also the personal interest of the disabled person doing voluntary work. It can only benefit individuals to have their worth and their contribution to the community recognised, reaffirmed and enhanced through voluntary work. There is no substitute for the help and support that a disabled person can provide for someone else who has recently been afflicted with the same or a similar disability. That is why there are so many voluntary groups providing specific support.
9 pm
The Government have made great play of attracting people to serve on public bodies. Opposition Members tend to refer to such bodies as quangos. In any case, the Government have tried to demonstrate how eager they are to attract a diverse range of people and of experience and a cross-section of the community. If the Government are serious about that, they ought to support the amendment and, thereby, ensure that no sick or disabled person will lose benefit because he or she contributes to a public body or will be deterred from serving.

Mr. Pike: Many councils are about to devolve housing functions further down the line. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong if a disabled person were unable to play a voluntary role in that sector? Such people could make a special contribution by representing the interests of the disabled in general.

Ms Squire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is vital that disabled people be given an opportunity to make a full contribution to the development of housing. We have all seen new buildings that were supposed to make provision for disabled people but whose doors are not wide enough to take a wheel chair.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, I remind the Minister that on Friday of this week the House will deal with the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I understand that, earlier today, the Prime Minister suggested that the Government might

actually support that Bill. Unfortunately, I missed the right hon. Gentleman's comment as I had to deal with other business. There is no doubt that, if the Government tell a disabled person, "Your choice is between voluntary work with no incapacity benefit and benefit with no voluntary work," they are indulging in gross discrimination.
By doing that, the Government will deny sick or disabled people valuable opportunities to live a normal life, to rebuild their confidence and to gain the skills that could eventually help them to return to paid employment. That is discrimination of a deeply offensive nature. How can the Government claim to be caring, compassionate and committed to community care if they behave in such a way? How can they close the doors of opportunity and benefit to the individual and to the community as a whole?
I urge the Government to recognise, encourage and applaud the unique contribution that disabled people can make to the community and to support the amendment.

Mr. Scott: I should like to start by saying that I found the arguments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) particularly persuasive. I know that the hon. Lady has much experience of the voluntary sector and I listened carefully to her remarks.
I shall not urge the House to accept the amendment, although I agree warmly with the principle behind most of it. The only part that gives me some concern—I shall return to that matter in the course of my remarks—is the last few words:
appointment to relevant bodies and committees".
I want to enter a reservation about that.
In practice, the regulations that we have in mind already are intended to include reference to voluntary work, so I see no reason to specify on the face of the Bill that the regulations should do that. It is our intention to provide a regulation-making power to specify that, where a person undertakes more than a prescribed amount of work, he will be treated as capable of work.
The amendment introduces to the regulation-making power a reference to people with disabilities who are involved in voluntary work and the valuable contribution that they can make to it, through appointment to relevant bodies and committees, and states that it should be a fact to take into account when making regulations under the power. It makes no material differance to the regulation-making power as currently drafted because the regulations allow us to specify any category of work.
Hon. Members are already aware of our intentions for the regulations made under this clause. We intend to carry forward the therapeutic work rule, allowing people to undertake work up to a limit of 16 hours and/or £43 a week, where it is accepted as beneficial to their condition. Equally, we are bringing forward special rules for both councillors and disability appeal tribunal members.
As the House is already aware, however, we are extending the special rule for disability appeal tribunal members to members of the disability living allowance advisory board. It will allow the first day of attendance at DLAAB meetings in any one week to be disregarded. Only further days of attendance that week would affect a person's benefit. It recognises the fact that allowances paid for a day's attendance to DLAAB members would consistently take them above the therapeutic work limit.

Mr. Pike: I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how widely he sees the therapeutic benefit being interpreted. It is possible for it to be interpreted extremely


tightly or fairly liberally. Most hon. Members, and certainly those present at the moment, would prefer a liberal interpretation.

Mr. Scott: It generally is interpreted in a liberal way. If the hon. Gentleman has the details of particular circumstances in which he feels it is being interpreted in a more restrictive way, I would be grateful if he would contact me about them.

Mr. Dewar: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee. I just want to follow the Minister's argument. Is he saying that this amendment is unnecessary because everything that it attempts to do is already contained in the Bill, in the regulation-making powers or in the way in which the Government intend to use those powers?

Mr. Scott: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, with the reservation that I have entered about relevant bodies and committees. I would not want to rule out that altogether, but there would be power in the regulations to include them. At the moment we have voluntary work and therapeutic work, and we have the special arrangements for disability appeal tribunals and the disability living allowance advisory board. If we were to go beyond that in specifying relevant bodies and organisations, I should want to consider carefully the extent of it and how particularly relevant it was to the purpose of the special arrangements that we are already making to allow and indeed encourage recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance to undertake voluntary work for up to 16 hours a week without any effect on their benefit.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced at Second Reading our intention to introduce the regulations. I believe that the change is not just consistent with the Government's wider objectives to encourage voluntary work but is regarded highly and supported right across the House and in another place. The work done by charities and voluntary organisations is immensely important. As Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I am constantly in touch with a whole range of voluntary organisations.
I may have told the House on another occasion that the previous holder of the French equivalent of my job always regarded as one of the glories of this country the infrastructure of voluntary and charitable effort and the way in which these bodies supported and worked with the Government at both national and local level in order to achieve their different objectives.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Scott: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment to end the sentence, I shall certainly give way to him.
The work done by those organisations is immensely important and it has a second role that is important, in that it can be an important and significant way of helping people to make a gradual transition back to full-time work.

Mr. Howarth: May I ask my right hon. Friend for additional clarification? He said that it was the Government's intention to ensure that recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance would benefit from those concessions. Is it also their intention that the concessions should be applied to recipients of

invalidity benefit or, if he is not able to say that immediately, will he say that the Government are prepared to look sympathetically at that possibility?

Mr. Scott: At the point of change, although people who are on invalidity benefit at the moment will continue with their existing entitlement to the rate of invalidity benefit that they at present draw, they will be in receipt of incapacity benefit at that point, so they will qualify under the new arrangements. I hope that that deals with my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Howarth: I am simply asking, are the Government prepared to bring forward that concession?

Mr. Scott: I have had a number of representations about bringing forward the scheme in advance of the April 1995 date. In part for the reason that I have just mentioned, I would want to give careful consideration to the implications. We are studying the scheme. I am not without sympathy for the idea, but I cannot give my hon. Friend a straight answer at this moment.
Certainly, the role of the provision is immensely important to the individuals concerned and to the charities and voluntary organisations that benefit from their important contribution to their work. It is also, I think, important in enabling people to make a gradual transition back to work. I hope very much that recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance will be able to take advantage of the new provision to build up their confidence and experience in a range of ways.
I therefore hope that, acknowledging the Government's altitude towards voluntary work, the concessions that we have already made and the fact that I have shown that we are perhaps open to persuasion on a number of other points that might be included if we accepted the amendment as a whole, the Opposition will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Mr. Ingram: I reiterate and reinforce the compliment that the Minister of State paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her contribution to the debate. I hope that the many strong points that she made will force him just that little bit further —perhaps not tonight, but in his further deliberations.
It was a pity that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was not on the Committee with us; we would have welcomed his contributions to our proceedings. It is a mystery that he was not a member, given his expertise and knowledge.

Mr. Scott: It is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Ingram: I notice that the Minister says that it is nothing to do with him, so we can perhaps point the finger elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon told us about the deregulation task force. That is a group dealing with volunteers and benefits. I do not know whether it is an expert group of 80 or indeed whether its members are experts at all, but I am apprehensive about what it is likely to come out with at the end of the day. My mother always said to me, "If you can learn something new each day, you are progressing," and I have learnt something new today about the deregulation task force and the group dealing with that area. It is something that I will have to consider further.
I am perplexed by the Minister's reluctance on the issue. Obviously he supports the weight of the argument. He understands the logic of it. He understands the principle underlying it. We pressed him on the subject of costs. He did not come back and say that there were significant costs there, and obviously it is not a cost argument that is debarring him from accepting the amendment. I listened carefully to what he said about the final part of the amendment, which gives him some cause for worry and concern, and I appreciate that he perhaps needs further time to examine it.
While listening to the Minister's response, we considered whether it would be worth while to push the amendment to a vote. Many groups and individuals outside the House would be glad to know that we were prepared to argue for it and vote accordingly. However, we are prepared to give the Minister a little longer to consider the points that have been advanced, not just in this debate but in all the representations that have been made to him by voluntary groups, his hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and others involved with disabled people.
I hope that what we have argued will become a matter of fact. If the power exists in current regulations, I hope that in the near future we shall see a change accordingly.

Mr. Scott: As the Opposition have been consistently critical of regulation-making powers, I make the point that if we wished to make the change, it would be comparatively easy to do so.

Mr. Ingram: We have been critical about how the Government use regulations, not about regulatory powers. I do not want to go back over the 48 references to regulations in 11 pages of a 17-page Bill or the increase in statutory instruments since 1985. Until then, an average of 2,000 statutory instruments were used by Labour and Conservative Governments, but, since 1985, there has been an exponential growth and the current figure is now well in excess of 3,000 and we expect that figure to continue to rise.
If the power exists, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give genuine consideration to changing the regulations. But it still leaves hanging the question of those on invalidity benefit until April 1995. Why cannot they be given that small concession? I hope that the Minister will be prepared to go back and talk to those who hold the purse strings and will make the final decision, and that we shall see a positive development in that regard.
The debate has added to the weight of knowledge on the subject, and I hope that the Minister can use it to good advantage in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 13, line 27, after `(3)' insert
'For the period of three years from Royal Assent'.

No. 11, in page 13, line 28, leave out 'the first' and insert `any'.

No. 12, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'or (6)' and insert '(6) or (7)'.

No. 13, in page 13, line 35, leave out '(1)'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Clause 7

RATE OF STATUTORY SICK PAY

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 13, line 42, at end insert—
(1A) Any order under section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (up-rating orders) made by the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section shall include provision making such increase (if any) in the sum specified in the amendment made by subsection (1) above as the amount of statutory sick pay as is necessary to make that sum equal to the higher rate of statutory sick pay payable after the order comes into force.".—[Mr. Scott.]

Clause 11

TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 15, line 36, at end insert—
(1A) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is not exercisable in respect of any matter for which provision may be made under section 4 (power to provide for transition to incapacity benefit) or section (Power to provide for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work) (power to provide for the transition to new test of incapacity for work).";

No. 16, in page 15, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Scott.]

Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
(2A) Where a person is entitled to a disability premium by virtue only of satisfying the test of incapacity for work—

(a) those so entitled on the day of commencement shall be entitled to a transitional award of income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit, as appropriate on the same basis as awards of incapacity benefit under section 4 of this Act;
(b) after commencement, he shall be entitled to such a premium from the date of claim, provided that he can produce medical evidence of incapacity for work during the previous 364 days.".
This is the final amendment on Report, and I hope that the way in which the Minister dealt with the previous amendment will flow through to this amendment as it deals with an aspect of transition arrangements which the Government have not dealt with fully to date. I feel confident that the Minister will be able to support it. The amendment seeks to enable people receiving the disability premium to have the same transitional protection as those on incapacity benefit and to allow for immediate entitlement to premiums through backdating.
Some people now claim a disability premium with one of the means-tested benefits without receiving one of the qualifying benefits such as disability living allowance. In such cases, people may be entitled to the premium, provided that they can show that they are incapable of work. The incapacity test is the same as is now used with the invalidity benefit.
The Bill introduces a new test of incapacity to work to be applied across all relevant incapacity benefits. That, of course, will include disability premium. The amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure, first, that there is transitional protection for people on the disability premium at the time of change and, secondly, that an immediate entitlement to the premium is possible, provided that medical evidence is submitted.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that, according to the 1992 figure, the benefits of 424,600 income support recipients include the disability premium, but no mention has been made of transitional protection for claimants of the disability premium.
Many people qualify for the disability premium through a qualifying benefit, or if they are registered blind, but those most likely to be affected by the introduciton of incapacity benefit are those who qualify only on grounds of the incapacity condition and who have submitted medical certificates to the Benefits Agency. They include people who are unable to qualify for national insurance benefits or who cannot qualify for severe disablement allowance, perhaps because they are not 80 per cent. disabled. Access to the premium via the incapacity condition is therefore particularly important for women.
The amendment seeks to clarify what arrangements are being made to protect, at the time of change, people who receive the disability premium by way of the incapacity condition. We also seek clarification about the full year's wait for benefit. Currently, the disability premium is payable after 28 weeks of incapacity for work. With the introduction of incapacity benefit, which in effect extends the definition of short-term incapacity to 364 days, the qualifying period for the disability premium has likewise been extended to a year. Using the 1994–95 figures, someone under the age of 60 faces a loss of £19·45 per week, which amounts to a loss of £466·80 during the period from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. It is estimated that the change will save £20 million in 1995–96 and £25 million in 1996–97. Those figures were given in column 598 of Hansard on 14 February 1994.
At the moment, certificates from a general practitioner have to be presented as evidence, which can include the backdated medical certificate—Med 5—to prove incapacity to work in a previous period. That could happen when claimants are not aware of their entitlement. Will the Minister clarify whether, as no premium will in future be payable for 52 weeks, there will be provision for backdating, by a Med 5 certificate, for 52 weeks? 
At what point will people applying for the disability premium have to undergo the new functional test? Will they have to undergo it immediately? Will they then have to wait a full year before they receive benefit? Will the test be at the 28th week? Will claimants then have to wait a year for payment? 
At what intervals is it anticipated that someone will have to be tested or re-tested? Have the Government any estimate of how often the condition of claimants who pass the medical test and who are in receipt of incapacity benefit will be subject to reassessment or be requested to fill in a new questionnaire? Have the Government given general consideration to the review of incapacity cases?
Evidence from citizens advice bureaux already shows that many claimants are not identified by the Benefits Agency at 28 weeks and lose out on the disability premium. How would the Benefits Agency ensure that people on income support were identified and put in the queue for any medical assessment after the first 28 weeks? 
We are trying to flag up the anomalies that we believe are in the system. I recognise that the Government have already indicated that they recognise that there will be anomalies. In this case, while some people will have to wait a full year before receiving the premium, those who qualify because they receive severe disablement allowance will get the premium from the 28th week. Are there any plans to iron out anomalies in the new incapacity benefit? 
The Government have already conceded that they will have carefully to consider transitional arrangements in their framing of the regulations. They have admitted that they may not get them right first time and may have to

amend the regulations. Having considered the complexities of transitional arrangements, I have some sympathy with the Government.
It is important, however, that the amendment identifies a particular issue, and I hope that the Government will respond to it. I see that they may well do so soon and I shall speak slowly to ensure that we get some response. It is an important issue and may be typical of the range of potential difficulties on transitional arrangements because of the complexities of the current system, the interrelation of benefits and the additions to those benefits that apply to disabled people.
Having made those rather brief and technical remarks on the amendment, I should welcome the Minister's comments on the amendment and perhaps some more general comments on the time scale and the way in which he hopes to handle the transitional arrangements.

Mr. Scott: As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has acknowledged, this is a complex matter. I understand that the amendment seeks to protect access to the disability premium for the long-term sick.
I should assure the House that it is very much the Government's intention that there should be consistency of treatment in the application of the new and transitional incapacity arrangements.
Existing cases will be protected at the point of change. For sickness and invalidity benefit recipients, protection will take the form of transitional awards of the new incapacity benefit. I do not believe that such a mechanism is necessary or desirable for the income-related benefits. We are not changing the amounts of the income-related benefits in general or the disability premium in particular. The benefits will remain the same; there will still be a disability premium. We shall simply be amending the rules for the premium to reflect the new incapacity provisions.
We are talking about those who qualify for the disability premium on incapacity grounds alone. The long-term rate of incapacity benefit will replace invalidity benefit as a passport to the premium. It will include those with transitional awards of long-term incapacity benefit.
The new medical test will apply to existing disability premium cases on the same basis for existing contributory benefit cases. It is a test that applies across the benefits system wherever incapacity is an issue.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the reassessment of reviews of people who undertake the medical test. It will depend in essence upon the advice given by a departmental doctor to adjudication officers on the period in which the effects of the disability are likely to persist unchanged. For some people it may be for life; for others for a relatively short period. It would depend very much on the assessment of the impact of their particular condition on them, and it would be for adjudication officers to decide when any such case might be called forward for review for a reassessment of their entitlement.
Exemptions from the medical test for income-related benefits will broadly be on the same basis as that applicable to incapacity benefit cases. Those aged 58 or over at the point of change, the terminally ill, those suffering from a list of specified conditions or those receiving the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance will not be required to undergo the new medical test. Those who have the premium because they have been incapable


of work for 28 weeks will be treated as satisfying the new test and will continue to qualify for the premium while they are incapable. If an adjudication officer decides that they are capable of work, the premium will be withdrawn, as now, unless payable on other grounds.
9.30 pm
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a period of incapacity occurring immediately before a claim for income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will, as now, count towards the qualifying period for the premium. Such a claim would, of course, be considered in the light of the rules applying at the time. For a claim to be made after the introduction of the new arrangements, the new test will apply. Our aim is to protect existing benefit recipients from a drop in benefit at the time when the new arrangements are introduced. That clearly does not apply where a claim starts after the date of change. There is no reason to give the same protection to them as for existing cases.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the possibility of backdating. If backdating evidence is provided, immediate entitlement will still be possible. The new all-work test, however, will still be possible. The new all-work test, however, will need to be satisfied at the start of the income support claim. The Benefits Agency medical service judgment will be needed to judge that the person was incapable of all work for the previous six months. That is in addition to the GP's evidence for the six months before that. Pending that evidence, the premium will be paid from the outset of the claim.
I hope that I have covered most of the points of this particularly complex issue. I do not think that our intentions vary widely from those of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bradley: I welcome the Minister's comprehensive explanation. This is an extremely technical matter, and it is incumbent on all of us on the Opposition Benches to look carefully at his explanation to ensure that it covers all the different angles of the complex nature of income-related benefits and their interrelationship with disability premiums and other premiums that may be applicable to them. It would be sensible for us to look carefully at them and to see how they relate to the other transitional arrangements that will be introduced at later stages.
I am sure that when the Bill leaves this House and is considered in the other place, their Lordships also will be concerned to ensure that protection at the point of change is forthcoming on a whole range of complicated individual cases. It would be sensible at this stage to look carefully at this and similar complex matters. In that light, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have no intention of making a lengthy speech at this late hour. I believe that we have had a good and constructive Committee stage, and today we have had a

good and constructive Report. I am sure that further proceedings on the Bill will be characterised in the same way.
Opposition Members and, indeed, some of my hon. Friends, have pressed me today on a number of commitments that I gave in Committee to consider a number of specific issues, such as linking rules, treatment of the terminally ill and broadening the definition of training, and we had specific mention today of the importance of voluntary work. I warned the Committee that a number of these matters were complex, and would necessarily take some time to explore.
I share the disappointment of hon. Members who have taken a particular interest in the Bill that it has not been possible to complete that consideration in time for today's proceedings, but I repeat my commitment to continue to consider the issues carefully and constructively. Let me also remind the House that, if amendments are required, there will be a suitable opportunity for them to be moved in another place; the House of Commons would then have an opportunity to consider the issues again.
The Bill fundamentally reforms benefits paid to those who are incapacitated for work. First, it introduces a new, more objective medical test. As the House knows, the Government are committed to a test that focuses only on medical factors in determining entitlement to a benefit paid on the grounds of medical incapacity. We consider that logical, right and proper.
Opposition Members have complained that they have been unable to debate the detail of the test; I think they are aware, however, that the detail is subject to wide-ranging, on-going consultation and evaluation, and in due course will be set out in regulations. What we have been able to do—I pay tribute to the constructive approach adopted by both sides, in Committee and today—is consider the principles underlying the new test. The genuinely sick will satisfy the requirements of the test.
The second element of the reform is consideration of the appropriate level of provision. In Committee and again today, we have debated each component of the benefit. I know that Opposition Members hold different views about the appropriate level, but I believe—and the Government believe—that, with the passage of time, some elements of invalidity benefit, such as additional pension or dependency increases for adults when there are no children to care for, have become anomalous. On the question of additional pension, there is at least some agreement between the Government and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
We have also introduced a new definition of long-term incapacity—52 weeks, which I consider a more appropriate measure and a reasonable definition. It is important to emphasise at this stage, lest there be any misunderstanding outside the House, that the Government have fully protected existing recipients of invalidity benefit: there will be no cash losers at the point of change.

Mr. Flynn: Does not the Minister agree that, although the Bill has been sold as an attempt to rid the system of abuse, it reduces in three ways the amount that people will receive in future—people who, as the Government admit, are incapable of work?

Mr. Scott: I have just said that there will be no cash losers at the point of change. That is very important. A number of speeches made in Committee may well have


misled people outside the House into believing that they will lose money at that point, which is why I wanted to emphasise on Third Reading that they would not.
We remain committed to a contributory income replacement benefit paid on the ground of sickness. I believe that our reforms will help to make benefits for those who are incapacitated for work affordable and sustainable into the next century. I also believe that the Opposition's approach to the Bill manifests their lack of will to achieve that aim.
Without the Bill, expenditure would continue to grow without being clearly focused on the long-term sick. I remind the House that, in 1979, expenditure on invalidity benefit was £2·4 billion; in 1993, it was £6·1 billion. It is forecast to rise to £8 billion by 1997. Governments across Europe, in North America and in Australasia are all considering or implementing reforms in this regard.
I believe that any responsible Government would have to take steps to deal with the rapid and sustained growth in expenditure and the number of recipients, and the fact that the benefit is no longer focused solely on those who are sick. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Wallace: I shall be brief. The Minister said that there will be savings for the Treasury, and the Opposition parties understand that that is the whole purpose of the Bill. He said that there will be no cash loss during the period of change for those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit but, as I understand it, those who are not today incapacitated for work but who are so incapacitated after 1995 will be worse off as a result of the introduction of the new benefit than they would otherwise have been.
As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said in his intervention on the Minister, we are talking about people whom, even under the new strict test, the Government accept are incapacitated for work.
It is interesting to note that, although it is an undeniable fact that the number of people currently receiving invalidity benefit has increased threefold since 1975, work done by the Policy Studies Institute has shown that, among men of working age, the number starting a period of invalidity benefit has fallen from 465,000 in 1977–78 to just under 200,000 a year in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
One of the explanations for the overall increase is the number of people who continue on invalidity benefit longer than they would have done in earlier times. Of course, one of the big differences between 1975 and 1994 is the unemployment rate.
We now fear that, under what the Minister called a "medical" test, which is more like a mechanistic test, more people will be deemed capable of work but will nevertheless not be able to find it. I believe that we shall be condemning the most vulnerable members of our community to suffer as a result; and, as has been said, this measure will bring people to our constituency surgeries in 1995 and beyond.
We shall do our best for them, but we shall at least be able to say that we warned the Government what would happen; I hope that Conservative Members who vote for Third Reading tonight will be able to look their constituents in the eye with an easy conscience when the time comes.

Mr. Flynn: There are three methods by which the Government are introducing massive cuts—and they are cuts, because the Bill is about saving £1·5 billion.
The first method is the change in the second six months, the reduction of benefit from the 29th to the 52nd week. It will affect people who have passed the Government's incapacity test. They will lose up to £1,000 in that time during the second six months.
The second method involves the abolition of the earnings-related additional benefit. It is not a handout, but an insured benefit, for which people paid from 1978 to 1991. They are entitled to it. If an insurance company announced that it was not going to pay out its premiums, it would be in court on a charge of fraud. The Government are perpetrating a deceit.
The third method is the introduction of the new test. Having listened to the debate in Committee and here today, I do not see how it could possibly work, as it is wholly impractical. It is impossible for a set test to ascertain whether a person—a bricklayer, barrister or brain surgeon —is incapacitated for work. Such a system cannot possibly work.

Mr. Bradley: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill and advanced their views in Committee. Clearly, we have been disappointed throughout the various stages that the Government chose not to allow that constructive debate through their own Back Benchers in Committee—although, as always, the Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State treated constructively the issues that the Opposition raised in Committee.
It is important to note that, in Committee, the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues gave assurances that they would introduce by way of regulations some of the key issues, only some of which we have had the opportunity to debate this evening. I flag issues such as fast-tracking on to long-term benefit, the linking rules and, crucially, training.
We have not had an opportunity to debate training, and the way in which that will impinge on people's benefits. Again, the Minister gave assurances at earlier stages of the Bill that he would carefully consider that, as well as the definitions of "own occupation", all-work tests, "therapeutic earnings" and the other issues that we have managed to raise. It is important that we make it absolutely clear that we will be pursuing those matters carefully when the regulations are made on those points. We shall not forget the concessions that the Government made in Committee, and we shall ensure that they are brought forward.
As the Bill leaves the House, I am absolutely certain that a vigorous and detailed examination of it will occur in another place. I look forward to dealing with a considerable number of amendments that may be tabled to reinforce our opposition to the Bill. I warn the Government that our opposition to the Bill does not end this evening. As we have highlighted, it will be a boomerang, like the Child Support Agency, which will come back to thwack the Minister on the head in about 12 months' time, when the real implications of the legislation are seen by the public.
I am sure that the Minister will support the sentiment that, as consideration comes to an end, it is important to pay tribute, as we did in Committee, to the voluntary organisations which represent disabled people in the


country. On a day-to-day basis, they represent the interests of disabled people so thoroughly and effectively, and when a major piece of legislation such as this comes before Parliament, it is apparent how effective and important they are in providing all hon. Members with detailed information so that we may effectively debate crucial parts of that Bill.
I pay tribute to organisations such as the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, the Spastics Society, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Arthritis Care, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the all-party alliance, the all-party disabled group and many others too numerous to mention. They have worked extremely hard on our behalf over the past few months to ensure that Parliament has been able to debate the measure as effectively as possible.
The quality of the debate has been down to them, and we should put our tribute on record. I know that hon. Members have received invaluable information from voluntary groups which represent disabled people in their constituencies, which have been able to pinpoint how it will affect constituents specifically. That case work will come back to haunt the Government when the Bill becomes law in April 1995.
What is absolutely clear, and what has formed the backcloth to the deliberations, is that the Bill has been introduced not because the Government believe that they have to consider carefully and to rationalise benefit to disabled people, but because they have been told clearly and brutally by the Treasury that they have to make cuts in their departmental budget, and they have seen disabled people as a soft target.
They have used the invalidity benefit scheme without proper analysis or proper understanding of the needs of disabled people who are currently in receipt of invalidity benefit. They did not have a complete understanding of the nature of someone going on to invalidity benefit, or of the disjointed nature of those people's opportunities to return to the employment market.
There has been no recognition by the Government that, in the current climate of 3 million to 4 million unemployed people, having a medical test which enables a functional assessment of whether people can cope, not only with their current career, but with a sudden exposure to the all-work test, will mean that any job which may become available —I stress may—will, somehow, become available. In reality, with mass unemployment, that hope will not come to fruition for disabled people.
People will be denied incapacity benefit; and not only will they have to go on to the unemployment register but, as analysis of the legislation over the coming years will show, it is most likely that they will become the long-term unemployed of the future. There will not be opportunities for them in the employment market, despite any attempts that the Government may make on access schemes for returning to work.
When employers are looking for flexibility, and want to drive down wages because of the additional costs and burdens arising from the shift of sick pay on to their budgets, they will not want to employ people with disabilities.

Mr. Wicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would take a comprehensive Government programme across

Departments to ensure that people with disabilities, many of whom will fail the new medical test, receive training for work in the current difficult economic circumstances? Does he further agree that there has been no sign whatever of the Government's taking a comprehensive approach to that important problem?

Mr. Bradley: I fully support what my hon. Friend says. The Government ask the Opposition what we would do. We are conducting a review within a comprehensive framework. One cannot consider benefits in isolation: one must consider training and employment as a whole, and the economy in general. That is what the Labour party is undertaking, and we shall make our proposals for the benefits system, including benefits for disabled people, in due course when the overall review is completed.
Our purpose now is to oppose what the Government are introducing—to oppose not only the medical tests, which are nonsense in the context of the real world of employment, but the cuts in benefits. We have emphasised, and the Minister has honestly admitted, that the Bill is about more than ensuring that the new incapacity benefit goes only to people who pass the medical test. As the Minister has readily confessed, it is also about reducing the amount of money available for people on the new benefit.
Conservative Members must be absolutely clear what they will be voting for. They will be voting to introduce a new benefit for people with disabilities that will be paid at a lower rate than that received by people currently in receipt, and genuinely in need, of invalidity benefit.
When their constituents ask them why they are receiving less money than someone else who has genuinely been assessed as entitled to the previous invalidity benefit, Conservative Members must not say that they did not know that that would happen. It has been made perfectly clear that, having got through the hoop of the medical test, people will still receive the new incapacity benefit at a lower rate, and there will be other significant changes.
We have touched on the subject of additional pensions. We can argue about their role within the overall contributory benefits system, but we must stress that the new benefit will include no age allowance for women claimants between 45 and 55—or up to 60 for men. There will also be a lower level of benefit between the 28th and the 52nd week of the claim, and there will be no dependant's allowance for people under 60 without children.
It must be clear to Conservative Members that they are voting for that cut in benefits. They must also be clear that they are voting for medical tests that neither hon. Members nor you, Madam Speaker, have yet had the opportunity to see. We do not know how the medical tests will work in practice. When he opened the debate, the Minister said that it was unfortunate that we were having to debate the legislation before the consultation on the medical tests had been completed.
It was in the Government's hands how they timetabled the legislation. Surely it would have been more sensible to complete the consultation on the medical test, and allow all hon. Members to review it and give their views in the normal way. The Government could then have brought forward the final decisions on the medical test, so that the test could have been debated in the light of the other changes that they wish to make on incapacity benefit.
It was in the Government's hands to bring forward the medical test in that manner, rather than steamroller the Bill


through in unseemly haste, without any real understanding of its implications, and having to rely on regulation after regulation being tabled in the coming months and years to ensure that in some way they can skew the new benefit to meet their financial targets. That will be the purpose of the medical test.
The Government claim to have a proud record on increases in the money available for disabled people. That may have been true at one time, but the sorry story is that, over the past few months, the Government have set about dismantling the support for disabled people and the benefits generally available through the welfare state.

Mr. Scott: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister shakes his head. He proudly introduced—we supported him on this—the independent living fund. Because of the financial success of the fund, because of the number of claimants who are benefiting from it, and because of the number of people who are able to live more independently in their own homes as a result of a cash contribution from the fund, what did the Government do? The Treasury said that the fund was successful, but it was costing money, so the Government would have to cut it. That was the first stage in the process of dismantling benefits for disabled people. This Bill is the next stage.
I know that the Minister sits there with a heavy hear having to listen to this debate. I believe that he would have liked to fight the Treasury, but he was overruled because of the Government's economic incompetence and the promises they made at the last general election—they believed that they would be able to fool the electorate into believing this—that the economy was sound and public finances were sound.
We knew that that was not the case, and now we must suffer the consequences of their decisions. But we are not the ones who will suffer—the people with disabilities will suffer. The most vulnerable people in our society will suffer from the Government's incompetence.
It must be clear to all hon. Members that, when they vote to implement the legislation, they are voting to cut the amount of money that will be available for disabled people in their constituencies. Hon. Members should not believe that work will be found for disabled people. They know from the cases they deal with, and from the high levels of unemployment throughout the country, that job opportunities for people with disabilities are at the very least tenuous.
Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, we continued vigorously to oppose what the Government are doing. We were determined to tell the British people that the defence of benefits, the defence of the needs of the most vulnerable and the defence of disability benefits is in the hands of the Labour party.
People cannot trust the Government. The dismantling of disability benefit will continue.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary will be the first to start screaming when his constituents in Bury, North come to him about this matter. He will be the one on local television and in the local media saying, "It wasn't me. I didn't know what I was doing. I apologise to my constituents." However, they know who the guilty people are. We will continue to oppose the Bill, root and branch, and ensure that the defence of disabled people remains in the safe hands of the Labour party.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided:Ayes 302, Noes 276

Division No. 156]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dover, Den


Aitken, Jonathan
Duncan, Alan


Alexander, Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwillym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)






Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M.(Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Whittingdale, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fatchett, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Bames, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beggs, Roy
Fraser, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)


Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Caborn Richard
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harvey, Nick


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Henderson, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'd, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S.


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Litherland, Robert






Livingstone, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pendry, Tom


Llwyd, Elfyn
Pickthall, Colin


Loyden, Eddie
Pike, Peter L.


Lynne, Ms Liz
Pope, Greg


McAllion, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McAvoy, Thomas
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


McCartney, Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Macdonald, Calum
Prescott, John


McFall, John
Primarolo, Dawn


McKelvey, William
Purchase, Ken


Mackinlay, Andrew
Radice, Giles


McLeish, Henry
Randall, Stuart


McMaster, Gordon
Raynsford, Nick


McNamara, Kevin
Redmond, Martin


McWilliam, John
Reid, Dr John


Madden, Max
Rendel, David


Mahon, Alice
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Mandelson, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Marek, Dr John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rogers, Allan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Rooker, Jeff


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Rooney, Terry


Martlew, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maxton, John
Rowlands, Ted


Meacher, Michael
Ruddock, Joan


Meale, Alan
Salmond, Alex


Michael, Alun
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Milburn, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Andrew
Short, Clare


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Simpson, Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mudie, George
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Paul
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Neill, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Tyler, Paul





Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Wise, Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Andrew



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to raise with you the question of lying. I understand that lying in the House is totally out of order, and any hon. Member who accused another hon. Member of lying would immediately be asked to withdraw the remark or to leave the House. Today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that Ministers are sometimes entitled to lie to the House. Would you deprecate any lying, whether by a Minister or anyone else? If there were lying, would we be in a position to say so?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recall that whatever took place today did so in Committee. I have already made it clear today on another issue that this is an internal affair in that Committee. If anything has gone wrong in the Committee, it is for the Committee to report to the entire House, in which case I will deal with it; but it is for the Committee to deal with anything at this stage.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In the event that you were to investigate the point of order raised by the hon. Gentlemen, no doubt you would realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy, far from condoning the practice mentioned, said that the only circumstances in which he could envisage its being justified were when a Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with difficulties in the market; and he quoted a number of Labour Chancellors.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow discussion on this. I have made my ruling and explained the procedure to the House.

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
That the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Measure consists of a number of detailed amendments to the Pastoral Measure 1983; hence its short title. The common thread that runs through all those amendments is that they bear upon the disposal of redundant Church of England churches. I hope too that it will be a common thread uniting us all in the House that the future of our church buildings in England is not merely of concern to the Church of England but affects our wider English society as a whole.
Our parish churches are part of our national heritage and are often highly valued as a focus for the life of many local communities. The Measure would make the best possible arrangement for the future of those buildings and everything associated with them in the very few cases where they can no longer be used for their original purpose. To put matters in perspective, I should inform the House that, of some 16,000 Church of England churches, some 20 to 30 are declared redundant each year and 10 to 20 new places of worship are opened each year.
Both the Church of England General Synod and our own Ecclesiastical Committee saw the Measure as acceptable, desirable and non-controversial. Many of its new provisions stem from a report produced by Mr. Richard Wilding in 1990 at the joint request of the Government and the Church Commissioners. Those provisions, together with other parts of the Measure, are explained in detail in the comments and explanations furnished by the General Synod and annexed to our Ecclesiastical Committee's report. In view of the comparatively late hour I shall not attempt to expound all the provisions in detail, but it may be helpful if I highlight two or three aspects of the Measure.
The Measure contains positive provisions for safeguarding what the Pastoral Measure 1983 called "redundant" churches. For example, it provides for a new source of finance to help dioceses with the interim repair and maintenance of those buildings, when declared redundant, until a final decision is taken about their future, and it strengthens the covenants that protect the building in the hands of any new owner. A number of sections deal with the redundant churches fund, the body that exists to preserve carefully selected churches for which a new use cannot be found but which are of such historical and archaeological interest and/or architectural quality that they ought to be preserved, in the interests of the nation and of the Church of England.
That fund is financed partly by the Church Commissioners and partly by the Government, so it exemplifies the partnership between Church and state in dealing with that part of our heritage. The fund now has almost 300 churches in its care and it is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. As well as helping the fund to perform its functions even more effectively and to make the best possible use of its resources, the Measure also gives the fund a new name—the Churches Conservation Trust—which emphasises more positively the nature of its work and the fact that the buildings under its care are no longer "redundant" but have taken on new leases of life as assets

in perpetuity for the benefit of the Church, the nation and the relevant local community. I am sure that the House will agree that the churches conservation trust is a more positive-sounding title than the redundant churches fund.
Our Ecclesiastical Committee, in its report on the Measure, draws attention to the ecological importance of churchyards and burial grounds. Although their primary purpose is obviously as a resting place for the bodies of the deceased, it is very much in accordance with the Christian view of things that they should be places not only of death, but of life.
It may surprise some of my honourable colleagues to learn that many of our churchyards are sanctuaries for a rich variety of wildlife, which is finding it ever more difficult to survive elsewhere, especially in urban environments. I am glad to be able to assure the House that the Measure takes care to ensure that nothing threatens or undermines that living dimension of churchyards. Indeed, the Church of England and organisations associated with it are taking active steps to encourage wildlife conservation in our churchyards and to provide relevant information and advice. I have placed a few examples of the material that is now available in the Library for those Members who wish to pursue the subject.
As I have already explained, the Measure is positive, forward-looking and uncontroversial and deals with something that is of concern to the Church of England and the wider community. I therefore commend it warmly to the House and invite my colleagues to supprt the Measure and the motion standing in my name.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He has presented the measure to the House in fair and reasonable terms and I think that the House will give him cause to feel justified that he can secure majority support for the Measure. Without being excessively partisan, I might say that there will be more Conservative Members attending a debate about redundant churches than there would be for a debate about human redundancies, but that would be to stray into areas of conjecture and argument which may not be appropriate. Suffice it to say that the measure deserves to be accepted.
It is right that we should be concerned about the future of those churches which are surplus to requirement, whether it be because of a shift in population or a marked decline in attendance, but the right hon. Member for Selby was right to remind us that new churches are being established even when old ones are redundant. Churches are important, as the right hon. Gentleman says: not merely do they serve as places of worship, often for centuries, but they are of enormous architectural merit and even with declining attendances their importance in the local community remains significant.
The Government sometimes have most peculiar views about the teaching of history. It seems to be rather less fashionable than it used to be and some of the things that the Government want children to start studying are rather quaint. I know that one or two Conservative Members who were involved closely in education will share my view that history which does not place the local community at its heart is not necessarily relevant to the child or to the community.
The parish church is often extremely important in any study of local history, not merely because of the memorials to the locally great and good that can be found on the church fabric, but because the church was the heart of community life. It was the centre of local administration in the past. Architecturally, it was important not merely because of its aesthetic qualities but because the community, through sacrifice, often ensured that the building was created as a work of art and a landmark.
Without the spires and towers of parish churches in the east of England where the land is flat and relatively featureless, the landscape would seem much more barren and less pleasing to the eye. Although the population in some of those districts may have departed, to be replaced in some cases by occupants of holiday caravans in the summer, the church is still important because it serves as a landmark, a focal point and something to grace the landscape.
Churches exists not simply to adorn our countryside, although it is useful that every three or four miles a parish church stands with spire or tower as an attractive part of our heritage. I only regret that the House has not afforded a Second Reading to my hedgerows measure, which would have complemented parish churches. Some Conservative Members may come to regret their decision to block my Bill.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is deviating from the subject.

Mr. Hardy: I regret that deviation, Madam Speaker.
I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Selby referred to the change in title, because it is entirely appropriate. I am also glad that I took part in the discussion on the Ecclesiastical Committee, when I spoke in recognition of the fact that the buildings and land around churchyards are important.
As more wealthy members of our community move away from towns and into the countryside, derelict farm buildings are rapidly becoming less derelict and are likely to be modernised. The habitat of ruined barns or derelict farm buildings is disappearing fast, as is the population of barn owls. Redundant churches and parish churches that remain a vibrant part of the community may soon provide the only habitat for the barn owls that remain. Their population has dramatically diminished in many parts of England in the past few years, perhaps because of the shift of Conservative supporters from town to countryside. To some extent, the Measure makes up for that shift in population, which may sometimes be regarded as regrettable.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, churchyards are not merely repositories for the dead or places where the bones of the "village Hampden" remain interred, if I may quote Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard", which remains one of the finest poems written in the English language. It gives a flavour to the historic and social importance of the land around our churches. It is right that the fund should have a new title so that those responsible for it will be reminded of the value of our churchyards.
As the right hon. Gentleman recognised, the natural history aspect of redundant churches can be vital. Those that are redundant in the middle of a town provide peace and sanctuary, and are commendable. In the countryside,

which is often featureless, barren and, in some areas, increasingly deprived of natural historic interest, the remaining churches can be extremely useful.
The change in the title and the amended arrangements included in the Measure deserve to be approved. I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the Measure to the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I gladly support what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has said. Indeed, he uttered hardly a word with which I did not totally agree.
This is a good Measure and it is important that the House approves it. But this may be an appropriate opportunity to recognise the fact that we shall face increasing problems in the coming years in maintaining the fabric of our historic churches. As the hon. Member for Wentworth just said, they are frequently the central buildings in villages and towns, a focal point and, collectively, the glory of English architecture. But they are incredibly expensive to maintain. The drift away from many town centres and villages means that more and more churches will be considered for redundancy. I hate to use the word in this context, but it is now a familiar one.
The problem at its most acute is to be seen in the recent report on London churches. The city contains some of the greatest churches in the country, a number of which—if the report recently produced by Lord Templeman is implemented—will cease to exist. It is an appropriate time to recognise that, as well as the fact that the House will have to return to the subject on numerous occasions.
We now have state aid for churches that are in use, which is good, but insufficient. If we believe that we are dealing with some of the glories of English architecture and accept, as I certainly do, that no nation that allows Salisbury cathedral or Sherborne abbey to crumble deserves to call itself civilised, we must recognise our obligation. That duty has been increased by the financial mismanagement of the Church of England in recent months. There has been an appalling waste of resources.[ Interruption.] My hon. Friends on the Front Bench might find not the subject either interesting nor important, but some of us do. The financial problems of the Church of England will make the difficulty of maintaining our historic churches that much greater.
There are other problems. I fervently hope that the concept of the two integrities works and that both those who welcome the ordination of women and those who do not can still continue to worship side by side in the Church of England. But we are already beginning to see a drift from the Church. Although the hon. Member for Wentworth and I took different sides of that argument in the Ecclesiastical Committee, we recognise the common problem. If there is a drift away from the Church, it will accentuate the difficulties that the Church faces in maintaining its historic buildings.
I wanted to put down one or two markers this evening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who introduced the Measure with commendable brevity and his usual lucidity, will, I hope, talk with his fellow Commissioners about the difficulties and ensure that we have opportunities to debate them again in future. The change of title of the redundant churches fund is entirely appropriate, and I welcome it. But that will not solve the


problem of the maintenance of the fabric of our historic churches. It is merely a contribution which, although important, will not ensure that the buildings that grace so many of our towns and villages are secure into the next century. Without further assistance from Church and state they will not exist.
In approving the Measure tonight, I hope that we will not think that we are solving the problem. We are contributing towards its solution, but the problem will grow as the years pass. We shall see the problem at its most acute in the city of London. The way in which it is tackled there will be tremendously important for the future of the Church of England and its buildings.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I should declare an interest, albeit not a financially beneficial one, as a trustee of the Historic Chapels Trust, which is referred to in embryo form in the appendix to the Ecclesiastical Committee's report that accompanies the Measure. That report recomends that there should be a parallel organisation to the redundant churches fund to exercise a similar role in relation to places of worship other than those of the established Church. I serve under our former colleague Sir Hugh Rossi on that trust, which was set up to do precisely that job.
I and my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the Measure and the useful development in the framework within which the redundant churches fund operates. We welcome the fact that one feature of the Measure is that it can co-operate more fully with the Historic Chapels Trust.
The Historic Chapels Trust is in a more difficult position than the historic churches fund because it does not have the procedures for acquiring churches—we have no purchase price—which the redundant churches fund has. In certain circumstances, a church is made over to the redundant churches fund for care; it must then care for it using funds that come jointly from Church and state. It does an extremely good job. The fact that our trust has been formed on the basis of an analogy of that body is a tribute to its good work over the years and the respect in which it is held.
I have visited many of the churches held in trust by the redundant churches fund and it does a first-class job. We have to find funds with which to acquire important historic chapels; we have either to raise money to do so or to hope that they will be handed on.
Some denominations do not consider themselves to be in a position to hand over their buildings; indeed, they need to realise the sale price of the building or land to finance other developments. So they are in a position even more intense than that described in the City of London, where to some extent the other churches in the diocese are looking to benefit from the endowments of those churches. In the case of Nonconformist chapels, the actual value of the land and building is also at stake.
I welcome the change of name included in the Measure. The new name more accurately reflects the work which the former redundant churches fund has done and I welcome the greater flexibility and smoother handover of churches for which the Measure provides.
The redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust share responsibility for buildings which deserve to be

maintained without drastic alteration. There are quite a few churches which, if made redundant, can be put to another use and can be adapted. Some good and sensitive schemes have maintained particularly the external appearance of a building. There are several in my constituency. We might regret seeing a church passing out of use, but those schemes represent a sensible alternative.
The churches which the fund is dealing with and the chapels that gradually will be acquired by the Historic Chapels Trust need to be kept as they are. They reflect traditions and styles of worship; they contain fitments and works of such quality that ought to be retained; they illustrate much of our history; they are archaeologically significant. Therefore, to convert them would be unacceptable. That is the common thread which runs through the work of both bodies.
Clause 2(2)(c) specifically opens the way to co-operation between the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust. For example, we might ask the Churches Conservation Trust—the former RCF—to help us in the management of a particular building if it had others in the immediate neighbourhood, and it would be a more practical arrangement for it to keep an eye on the building for us. Such mutual agreement and understanding is much facilitated by the measure. Therefore, I am pleased that it is gaining support in the House.
Let me refer to one or two specific problems. The first lies precisely at the bridge between our two bodies—the problem of private chapels, where worship has been according to the rites of the Church of England.
Chapels of ease, or privately owned places of worship, are firmly part of the history and tradition of the Church of England. However, they are not eligible to be transferred to the redundant churches fund because they are private chapels. They are not really a priority for the historic chapels fund, as it has the charge of all the other denominations, including Jewish synagogues, to consider. Chapels which have been places of Church of England worship would be a strange application of priorities for a body with such limited resources.
In the first few months of the Historic Chapels Trust, we had just such a case; the Church of St. John the Baptist, Matlock, Bath, which is a notable building and very much part of the Church of England, but which happened to be a private chapel—a chapel of ease. Thankfully, it has been taken on by the Friends of Friendless Churches—another invaluable organisation. But it fell between our two bodies. The redundant churches fund must look again at the problem of the chapels of ease, which form part of the Church of England tradition. Because the redundant churches fund has the best accumulation of experience and understanding, it should take care of them. It is not appropriately a job for the historic chapels fund.
The issue of City churches was referred to by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I was surprised to find that the redundant churches fund was so rarely mentioned in debates and discussions following the publication of the Templeman report. That might have been because quite a lot of the initial criticism of the report came from those who hoped that not so many churches as is envisaged would be made redundant.
I share the hope that a larger number will remain in use for worship. I particularly hope that arrangements that now exist for the use of some of those City churches by other denominations will continue—for example, St. Nicholas's by the Free Presbyterians; St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf for


Welsh services; and St. Anne and St. Agnes for Lutheran services. I very much hope that those arrangements will continue, perhaps in some new form, if the status of those churches changes.
If it is anything to go by, the list of churches falls precisely into the category that I mentioned earlier; churches that must not be significantly altered, because their interiors as well as exteriors are so important, partly because of the sheer quality of the work that they contain, but partly also because they represent a style, tradition and layout of buildings for worship which was so much swept away by the Oxford movement, the "Ecclesiologist" magazine and all that flowed from that, and which is therefore so little apparent.
Anyone who looks at the physical appearance of Church of England buildings sees it through a Victorian glass. It is seen through what happened in the 19th century. One has to pick out a limited number of churches, many of them concentrated in the City, to have any understanding of what the Church of England was like in the two preceding centuries. Therefore, those buildings and their interiors are particularly important.

Mr. Simon Hughes: One of the things that knits the architectural and building importance with the importance of retaining churches for worship is that many of the communities—for example, the Welsh community and, in the case of St. Anne and St. Agnes, the Lutheran community—combine a centre for community worship in a city which otherwise does not afford them a church of their own, and in a structure and environment in which they feel comfortable. That is uniquely the case in capital cities that require more diversity of church provision than elsewhere.

Mr. Beith: I agree, and I hope that none of these nominations will be driven out by new arrangements that result from the Templeman report or by greatly increased costs that might result from it. It is possible under both the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust for buildings still to be made available for worship from time to time, but both bodies avoid being put in the situation for which they are not designed—maintaining buildings that are in normal regular use for worship. That is the job of neither body. They would have to be differently constituted if that was their purpose.
The fund will have to consider City churches. Let us look at the Wren churches with notable interiors—St. Mary Abchurch; St. Benet' s, Paul's Wharf, which I have already mentioned because of its Welsh use. It is a lovable church, both externally and internally. Most hon. Members probably see it only as they go along that elevated stretch of road beside the Mermaid theatre. The lovely little brick church below them has a wonderful interior as well as its charming exterior. The churches of St. Peter, Cornhill, St. Mary-at-hill, and St. Margaret, Lothbury, have remarkable interiors as well as exteriors. I therefore think that the fund may well have to involve itself in at least some of them unless different results come from the Templeman report than we expected.
The redundant churches fund does not operate in Wales, but the representative body of the church in Wales has now set about creating an alternative to it. That is more or less in operation. That has, quite properly, led a Select Committee to make clear the need for a body on the

Nonconformist and "other denominations" side, paralleling the fund being set up to deal with the churches of the Church in Wales. A recent report from the Committee put that view quite strongly.
I am sorry that no Minister from even the Department of National Heritage, let alone the Welsh Office, is present. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, whose constituency contains a number of very interesting churches and chapels, will pass on my comments to those concerned. I also hope that the Welsh Office will look favourably on the work done by the parallel body to the redundant churches fund in Wales, and also consider the need to create something similar to the Historic Chapels Trust in that country—whose many chapels cannot possibly be sustained by today's worshipping congregations.
A characteristic of chapel building in both England and Wales—as of church building in the City—was its almost competitive nature. In a number of instances, more buildings were put up than were probably ever needed: it is not just a question of decline. We have inherited that problem, but some of the buildings are of such importance and distinction that we must take very good care of them.
I welcome the work that the redundant churches fund is doing. I also welcome the measure, which I believe will help it in that work, and the co-operation in which it can engage with the Historic Chapels Trust and similar bodies in Wales—if they are created, as I hope they will be.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: First, let me say how grateful we should be to all those who have managed to keep churches throughout England out of the hands of the redundant churches fund, and who manage to raise the money—with great community effort—to keep those churches available not only to the present generation, but to future generations.
Any hon. Member who wishes to see that in action need only visit St. Anne's in the South Lambeth road, which will show them what a poor community has managed to achieve—with the help of some grant-giving bodies, but also with great enthusiasm on the part of a small number of activists and a larger number who hold the church in great affection.
Let me also say how grateful the House will be to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), and to others who pay attention to these issues—on the Ecclesiastical Committee and elsewhere. I do not think that the House takes for granted the Committee's residual role in dealing with the changes to canonical and synodical measures. On behalf of those present and not present, let me thank my right hon. Friend for his competence: we are grateful to him, and to those who advise him on matters both controversial and non-controversial.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We should welcome the measure, but let me introduce a note of caution. Regular readers of Private Eye's "Nooks and Crannies" will know that perfectly good churches have often been subject to various manoeuvres in an attempt to make them redundant and eventually—through a number of procedures, including a recommendation by the advisory board—to have them demolished. I hope that the report means that the Church of England will make a more


determined effort to provide for the preservation of valuable sites, rather than yielding to the entreaties of Mammon. The Church, like many other organisations, faces a shortage of money.
Whatever our views on religion, the fact remains that many churches are a focal and important part of the town or landscape. They are objects of beauty, which were established with great affection—both by the patrons who provided the money, and by those who built them. We should not ignore that; wherever possible, we should try to treasure and preserve such churches.
I hope that the change in the title of the Churches Conservation Trust represents an important change of emphasis in an area of difficulty, which I recognise. Churches are sometimes very large, and expensive to maintain and heat. I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley): often dwindling congregations have raised the money to keep such churches in existence. If that happens, so much the better, because it was the original purpose.
Although the churches may be very roomy during some services, that is none the less the best use for the buildings. It is often difficult to find an alternative use for a redundant church and at the same time retain some of the dignity and elegance with which the church was originally built. For example, burning rubber tyres in the aisle of an abandoned church may not be the most dignified use to which a building can be put.
It is important that the Church of England makes an effort at conservation, rather than face the possibility of making more churches redundant than is strictly necessary, which is what the Templeman report for the City of London implied would happen.
Chapels have been mentioned. The independent Upper chapel at Heckmondwike is a beautiful chapel which was made redundant many years ago. Its interior was ripped out and sold by the trustees, despite the fact that it was a grade II listed building, which means that the interior should have been retained. It is not a Church of England establishment, but it represented the aspirations of its builders to be seen as just as important as the Church of England. Observers might mistakenly think that it does belong to the Church of England because of the theological dispute that was current in the 19th century.
The chapel has lingered on, but not because of its owners, who regard it as merely so many bricks and pieces of stone held together by mortar, and, I suppose, see it as coming between them and God. For people who attend church, it is an important building that should be retained. It is one of two remaining grade II listed buildings in Heckmondwike, so, if it were demolished, 50 per cent. would go at one fell swoop, 
The chapel has been retained because of the local authority's persistence in refusing to give listed building consent. Credit is due to the authority for the fact that, despite criticism, attacks and suggestions in the press that

the redundant building should be flattened, it is still standing. I hope that it will be converted into something useful, such as flats.
At one time, a firm was involved—I hope that it still is —which has a reputation for doing decent conversions of churches into something that people need and want. I highlight that possibility as an illustration of a grade II listed building that there has been pressure to demolish. I hope that the measure that we are discussing means that we are casting aside the attitude that churches are finished with once worship ceases in them. We should redouble our efforts to ensure that they are retained for a decent and useful purpose.

Mr. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Upper chapel at Heckmondwike, whose story has been tragic. I hope that he will take some consolation from the fact that the Historic Chapels Trust is taking on not only a small former Quaker meeting house in Farfield near Bradford but the magnificent and enormous Unitarian church in Todmorden, with which he will certainly be familiar and which it was far beyond the resources of its existing congregation to maintain.

Mr. Cryer: There is some good news about. I do not want to repeat myself, but I hope that the measure reflects a change of heart because there have been some depressing reports in Private Eye to the effect that some valuable buildings have been discarded and, unfortunately, found their way on to the scrap heap. That is something to be avoided, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) can assure us that the Measure represents an improvement in the spirit of the Church.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pastoral (Amendment) measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

PROCEDURE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Raymond S. Robertson be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Alan Duncan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Hon. Members: Object.

EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Andrew Robathan be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. David Nicholson be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Martyn Jones be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Ambulance Personnel (Long-service Awards)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for coming to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is a pleasure.

Mr. Shepherd: I am glad that it is a pleasure, because it is also a pleasure for me to discuss an important and much-neglected subject, which may be small in span, but which means a great deal to many people.
My hon. Friend will know, as one who regularly walks through the Palace that at the entrance to the Terrace, there is a magnificent display of medals, which cover examples of virtually all the medals in existence, and many that used to be awarded. There are two spaces in that display and they are significant. One of the spaces is for a medal which is in existence, but is not displayed; one is because no medal exists. There is an existing medal for long service and good conduct in the fire brigade.
The medal which exists and is not displayed is the police service long service and good conduct medal, but the medal which is missing is for the ambulance service long service and good conduct medal. Tonight I want to address that piece.
My introduction to and contact with the ambulance service began some 20 years ago, when I came into the House. Before that, my only contact with the ambulance service was as a client at the age of eight when tender hands picked me off a fence on which I had impaled myself. I was enormously grateful and I am still most grateful for their care now.
My good friend and helper in the constituency, Harold Morgan, was a leading ambulance man who inducted me into the mysteries of the ambulance service, for which I have enormous gratitude. I remarked to him that I had not received a single complaint of failure on the part of the ambulance front-line personal of the Hereford and Worcester ambulance service in the entire time that I have been in the House. There may have been criticisms sometimes about shortcomings in administration, but the record of the ambulance men on wheels or on the ground is clean and remarkable and I can only call it meritorious conduct.
I pass the ambulance station outside Hereford each time on my way into the city. As all of us who represent rural constituencies know, we travel a great deal around them and I pass that station often. I cannot help but think every time I do so that it is all too easy to take those people and that service for granted. It may be right that we should take the service for granted, but I do not think that it is right to take the personnel for granted. We ask them to do a great deal for us and, on occasions, when we are in no condition to do it for ourselves.
I can do no better than to demonstrate the regard with which the ambulance personnel are held—certainly in my part of the world and I have no reason to believe that it is any different anywhere else—by quoting from a letter written by a general practitioner from Ledbury, which is

not in my constituency, but is not a million miles from it. The letter concerns the service of leading ambulance man Kevin Pendlebury Bowe and alas, was read at his funeral on 1 March.
The general practitioner wrote:
Although all the local ambulancemen inspire confidence, the sight of Kevin arriving during a tricky situation always allowed us to breathe a sigh of relief. He was unflappable, good humoured and supremely competent. He obviously took a great interest in his work as a paramedic—he was one of the first of this relatively new breed of ambulancement that we came across—but he always excelled. This was never at the expense of compassion and of this I can speak as one of his transported patients as well as a colleague.
My understanding of my constituents and others who are in the ambulance service is that that is not necessarily exceptional. It is the rule. I can think of no better tribute.
One of the great mysteries is why we are discussing the subject at all. I look in the telephone directory and see that the advice for emergencies is to ring 999 for the police, fire and ambulance services. Those are all front-line civilian services. Perhaps the work of the police is that much closer to the front of our consciousness because it is extremely well covered by the media—sometimes I think that, for the police's sake, it may be too well covered, but that is another story.
The fire brigade always makes marvellous television, with big red fire engines, flashing lights, great turntable ladders, belching hoses, people running about, smoke and fire. That is all good stuff, with drama and visual impact, and it is always effective.
However, always in the background is the ambulance service. It is the ambulance men who have to pick up the bits—often the bloody bits. As that involves intensely personal suffering and agony, we are usually treated only to the sight of a stretcher being loaded into the ambulance and the doors being shut. Nobody really understands the extent to which the ambulance personnel are involved.
As for comparability, the police are often exposed to violence and to physical and psychological risk. No one gainsays that; theirs is a difficult profession. Firemen, too, are frequently at physical and psychological risk. We cannot ignore the dangers in areas afflicted by terrorism, where there is also the risk of violence. However, we must not forget that the discreet, unforthcoming ambulance personnel are also at risk of violence and of psychological trauma as they go about their work. As for physical risk, let us not forget that not so long ago an ambulance man was killed on active duty in Leicester.
In Northern Ireland the mischief of the terrorist is a particular hazard. Ambulance men are not alone in facing that; the police and the fire service also suffer—but they all find that it induces nervous stress. Even in tranquil Herefordshire, even in the calm pastures of my part of the world, ambulance personnel have been shot at in the course of their duty. Nowhere and nobody is free from that risk.
I mentioned the psychological risk. It could be said that continual attendance at nasty road traffic accidents hardens the mind and calluses the attitude, so that it all becomes just so much more meat. But I cannot accept that that is true. All three front-line services—the police, the fire brigade and the ambulance service—attend traffic accidents. They all have their parts to play, and the experience is always traumatic.
I have only to reflect back on especially horrendous incidents such as the recent tragic accident on the M40 involving a minibus full of schoolchildren from Hagley,


which caused immense traumatic stress among the ambulance personnel involved. Ambulance officers are then seriously involved in counselling to unscramble the psychological mess that has been created. The trauma cannot be overcome simply by hardening, callousness or anything of that kind. Those tragic events always get to people.
All the time, as the work goes on, there is a continuing growth of expertise, which is developed through training, training and more training. That shows in the results, in the performance and in the delivery of service.
There can be no doubt that there is comparability between the front-line services. Even if an ambulant man wrecks his back and injures himself to the extent of disablement, perhaps by lifting victims in awkward circumstances, so that he has to be moved from the front line to the lighter duties of taking non-ambulance patients from home to hospital, so be it. They are the sympathetic interface between the health service and patients, who are often elderly and confused. It is a help if people are transported with care, consideration, sympathy, friendliness and the skill which is so often shown.
I first started chasing this medal in the early 1980s. My instantly get-atable files are traceable to 1987, but I recollect that I started this in the early 1980s. I recall receiving a letter from the chief ambulance officer of the Hereford and Worcester ambulance service, Cliff Orme, dated 7 September 1977 in which he recalled our previous exchanges on this matter. He said:
Sadly incidents such as the massacre at Hungerford …clearly indicate the danger and responsibilities facing ambulance services who work in the 'front line' with their colleagues in the other emergency services.
It has for some considerable time been the view throughout the rank and file of ambulance services in the U.K. that a long service medal should be awarded to ambulance staff, indeed Chief Ambulance Officers I know have pressed for this over a number of years without any success.
The chief ambulance officer also referred to a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister in August 1987. The Prime Minister replied to me saying:
This question has been considered several times in the past and most recently last year"—
that was 1986—
Although there has been some sympathy with the suggestion, particularly in view of the dedicated service by ambulance staff, it has consistently been rejected mainly because it was felt it would be invidious to single out ambulance staff for such an award when many other groups of NHS staff give equally long and loyal service.
However the Secretary of State for Social Services recently asked officials to give further thought to the feasibility of a long service award for all NHS staff. In view of the number of interests involved, including possible repercussions on other public services, it will be some time before a final decision can be made.
I let that run while I waited for the consultation and discussions.
I then wrote again one year later. In a letter dated 19 July 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, said:
I am afraid this process is taking some time, but we do hope to resolve this issue in the near future, and we will take account of the points you have made.
Time rode on and I had to take up the matter again. I controlled my patience as best I could. In November 1991,

I wrote again to the Secretary of State for Health. The present Secretary of State, in her manifestation as Minister for Health, wrote a letter to me in December 1991 saying:
The deliberations referred to in the then Prime Minister's letter to you of 18 September 1987 resulted in the conclusion that the introduction of a centrally sponsored long service award for NHS personnel generally would not be appropriate.
Further consideration is, however, now being given to the possibility of introducing a long service and good conduct award solely for front line staff in the emergency ambulance service, similar to the Crown awards already granted to members of the police service and fire brigades. A specialist working group has recently been set up to consider this, and held its first meeting on 2 December.
I thought that progress was being made and we were getting there but it was not so.
I let that run for a little while until I took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Minister who is here tonight. He wrote to me, referring to a letter that I had written to the Secretary of State in May 1993. I must compliment my hon. Friend—he must soon be qualifying for his own long service and good conduct medal in the Department of Health. He said:
The working group"—
mentioned in the Secretary of State's letter of 6 December 1991—
completed its work last year and recommended that a Crown recognised Long Service and Good Conduct Medal should be instituted for staff who have served for 25 years in the emergency ambulance service. I am inclined to accept the report's recommendations but have first asked officials to consult NHS management about the report.
I drew attention to my concern that 25 years was a long time, given the physical work involved and given the comparison with the armed services, which has 18 years, and the fire service, which has 20 years. I said that most people entering the ambulance service came in as mature people aged about 25. Therefore the chance of reaching 25 years—that is, 50 years of age—without doing themselves an injury was going to be difficult.
I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister responded to the point for one reason or another—maybe I was not alone in making it. My hon. Friend wrote to me on 25 August 1993 saying that I would be pleased to know that, following the consultation exercise, officials were drawing up a formal proposal for a medal to be
on the basis of a qualifying period of 20 years, on a par with the Fire Service".
I fel that that was good news. I waited in keen expectation and anticipation, but, not hearing anything, I took the matter up again at the start of this year.
My hon. Friend again responded to me with a letter on 17 February. He said:
I am pleased to say that a proposal for a Crown-recognised Long Service and Good Conduct Medal has been forwarded to the appropriate quarter for consideration and it is hoped that this will result in a positive recommendation to the Queen.
My hon. Friend went on to say that there were
many hurdles to be overcome
before he could say whether the proposal would be accepted.
My purpose tonight, after my rather long preamble, is to say that the ambulance service has been patient. There have been many hurdles, consultations and considerations and still we are going to the "appropriate quarter" and there are "many hurdles" to be overcome.
Will my hon. Friend give an insight into what the appropriate quarters for consideration might be? What are the many hurdles which have yet to be overcome? I would


like to know how to address the hurdles? What must I do to try to secure a well-deserved medal for long service and meritorious conduct in the ambulance service?
It has long been the wish of the ambulance service that it be regarded equivalently with the police and fire services, and I hope I have demonstrated its patience. In a sense of frustration some years ago, the chief ambulance officers themselves recognised that yearning and introduced their own recognition of long service and good conduct. However, we all know that that is less satisfactory than the real thing—the Queen's award or the royal warrant—which I am seeking tonight.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the chief ambulance officers' award cannot be worn on the left breast, but must appear on the right. That may make it stand out in a crowd, but there will always be the feeling that it is somehow second best, and that the best really should have pride of place on the left breast, as is the case with other medals and in other services.
We might be treading tonight down a path which has been trodden before. The 12th stricture of the royal warrant for the fire brigade long service and good conduct medal is that it is a condition of the award
that the grant of any unofficial or local long service or good conduct medal for wear in such a Brigade shall be discontinued, and that any unofficial or local long service medals, if already granted, should not be worn by a recipient of Our Fire Brigade Long Service and Good Conduct Medal.
I am certain that those who wear the unofficial good conduct and long service medal would gladly put it to one side in favour of something which held the royal warrant, which they could wear with even greater pride.
The royal warrant for the fire brigade medal seems to me to be an excellent model for the derivation of a royal warrant for an ambulance service long service and good conduct medal, and perhaps that could be used quickly. On 1 June 1994, it will be the 40th anniversary of the institution of a medal
honouring those who have rendered long and meritorious service as members of the Fire Brigades of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands".
I am sure that the police and fire services will join enthusiastically in celebrating the inclusion of the ambulance service in this form of royal and public recognition. Can we celebrate that 40th anniversary with a birthday present for the ambulance service and fill the empty space at the entrance to the Terrace?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is a pleasure to be here to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). I have never said that before about an Adjournment debate and I do not expect to do so again.
Ambulance men and women deeply deserve recognition for the wonderful service that they give to the public. I shall not attempt to match the eloquence with which my hon. Friend has described what they do, save to say that we have a magnificent ambulance service which has gone from strength to strength in recent years.
Many people have not yet become aware that in almost every front-line ambulance that answers a 999 call there is a paramedic—a man or woman who is highly trained in saving life through all sorts of manoeuvres and techniques that even a general practitioner might not always attempt. Indeed, it has sometimes been known for the general practitioner to defer to a paramedic on his or her arrival. Paramedics know precisely what to do to maintain life and to stabilise patients in those first vital moments after a medical emergency or an accident and before getting them to hospital.
Ambulance men and women deserve the great gratitude of the public. Many people, including my hon. Friend, have had first-hand experience of what they achieve and his area's ambulance service, the Hereford and Worcester, which is led by a legend in the ambulance world—Mr. Cliff Orme—is a very fine example. It has done extraordinary things to achieve high levels of performance in the time within which it responds to 999 calls. It has an excellent patient transport service for non-emergency cases and has gone further because it is at the forefront of involving the public in life-saving techniques. When I last visited that service I was told that 10 per cent. of the people in one large town in the area had received first aid training —a remarkable performance and one that is probably not matched anywhere else.
I am aware that Cliff Orme, in his distinguished time in charge of the Association of Chief Ambulance Officers, campaigned for the medal that we are discussing. In the short time remaining, I can tell my hon. Friend only that there has been progress. There has even been progress in achieving a Crown-recognised long service and good conduct medal since I last wrote to him. I cannot answer his question about the appropriate quarter to which the matter was forwarded, but such matters are processed somewhere in the Byzantine passages of the Cabinet Office, whence it will have to be forwarded to Her Majesty, whose ultimate decision it is.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is every reason to think that the ambulance service should receive such recognition, in line with the fire, police and other services. I cannot say what the outcome will be, for the reasons that I have outlined, but I will do everything that I can to encourage the process.
In our role as junior Ministers—I think that we are sometimes described as "Parly Charlies"—we are always slightly insecure. In the presence of the Whip, I can say that we never know when we may be shuffled out or elsewhere, or when we may have to change our duties. However, in the remaining time for which I hope to stay in my role as a junior Health Minister with responsibility for the ambulance service, if I achieve one thing I hope that it is a long service and good conduct medal for that service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o' clock.